"Intel chief: al-Qaida wants to attack US"

[ToxicAcidRed]

news.yahoo.com/intel-chief-al-qaida-wants-attack-us-210428344.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Syrian militant group tied to al-Qaida, the al-Nusra Front, wants to attack the United States and is training a growing cadre of fighters from Europe, the Mideast and even the U.S., the top U.S. intelligence official told Congress on Wednesday.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the Senate Intelligence Committee that such al-Qaida groups in Syria have started training camps "to train people to go back to their countries" — one of the newest threats emerging in the past year to U.S. security. He said "al-Nusra Front, to name one .... does have aspirations for attacks on the homeland." Clapper didn't elaborate or offer any evidence of al-Nusra's desire to attack the U.S.
Seems like a load of shit. I'm guessing it's just another excuse by the government chance to promote Paranoia, Islamophobia, Blind Patriotism (assuming Patriotism isn't a blind disease at it is), and "justified" government surveillance, in order to distract people from economic turmoil.

Just felt like sharing this with you.

[Sinister Intents]

news.yahoo.com/intel-chief-al-qaida-wants-attack-us-210428344.html
Seems like a load of shit. I'm guessing it's just another excuse by the government chance to promote Paranoia, Islamophobia, Blind Patriotism (assuming Patriotism isn't a blind disease at it is), and "justified" government surveillance, in order to distract people from economic turmoil.

Just felt like sharing this with you.

It's probably as you say to cause paranoia, increase islamophobia, and to awaken the patriots. They've done this kind of stuff before with news media. Also all patriotism is blind bullshit. I usually just ignore this shit when I see it on the internet.

[Skyhilist]

Oh dear, looks like I need to make my life more fear-based!

Seriously though I know this is pretty fatalist but for a terrorist attack in the immediate future, we're pretty much at the mercy of our bourgeois government as to whether or not it will be prevented. They'll probably fuck things up and there's not much that we can do, so there's not much point in trying to avoid it. In the long term our movement can strengthen, but we probably can't change a whole lot structurally in the short period of time before such an attack happens, if this is even legitimate.

[bcbm]

um this has been al-qaeda strategy for like over a decade. happened in bosnia, chechnya/dagestan, afghanistan/pakistan, iraq...

[AmilcarCabral]

Dear comrade, that is not a load of shit. I think that's normal in the US imperialist politically correct behaviour script. US gov. has this very bad habit of having good relationships with foreign governments of loving them supporting them, and then all of a sudden changing and trying to invade them. I think that's what happened to Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

And I think that US imperialism is trying to play that script against Syria, first they believed and supported Putin and that Bashar Al Assad didnt use chemical weapons against people. And now all of a sudden, they are changing and claiming that Bashar Al Assad has chemical weapons.

But the language that US imperialist gov. uses is tricky. Note how the White House is saying it: "We believe that Bashar Al Assad has chemical weapons" instead of "Bashar Al Assad has chemical weapons." (They can't use the second argument because it would require for US gov. to prove that Bashar Al Assad has chemicals. While if US gov. says "We believe that Bashar Al Assad has chemical weapons" won't require US gov. to prove that Bashar Al Assad has chemical weapons.

And that's the way the whole shitty nation of USA is. Just drive by a car dealer and you will see lots of nice cars with sticker prices of 9000 dollars in the front windshield. but if you decide to buy that car and you have 9000 dollars you won't be able to buy it, because when you walk into that car dealer the real actual price is really 15,000 dollars. That's the way all americans behave,. this is a country of liars, of very inmmoral people, enigmatic people who live a life of mysteries and secrecy






news.yahoo.com/intel-chief-al-qaida-wants-attack-us-210428344.html
Seems like a load of shit. I'm guessing it's just another excuse by the government chance to promote Paranoia, Islamophobia, Blind Patriotism (assuming Patriotism isn't a blind disease at it is), and "justified" government surveillance, in order to distract people from economic turmoil.

Just felt like sharing this with you.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Red flags usually lead to black flags. ;)

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

i'd be more surprised if there weren't consistent updates telling us that our "democracies" were under threat of attack by terrorists.

amber, red, back to amber, back to red. terrorist attack imminent. back to amber. and so on and so forth.

[bcbm]

i think its funny when people use anti-imperialism to believe that real anti-imperialist groups arent conspiring against them

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

i think its funny when people use anti-imperialism to believe that real anti-imperialist groups arent conspiring against them

Yeah, the Western-trained, Western-backed, anti-Communist al-Qaeda is a shining beacon of anti-imperialism.

[Sasha]

Lol at "leftists" who claim that Syria doesn't have chemical weapons, even Assad himself doesnt deny it, he even signed an disarmament agreement with the west and Russia.
How unhinged can you get?
At least cast doubt whether Assad USED chemical weapons, not whether he has them, that is established fact.

[piet11111]

Ah blow-back who did not see this coming ?

[bcbm]

Yeah, the Western-trained, Western-backed, anti-Communist al-Qaeda is a shining beacon of anti-imperialism.

lol the 80s were 30 years ago, a lot has happened since then and its not like proxy warriors have never gone rogue before. al-qaeda is certainly aligned against the west, but of course they're happy to take their money and guns to keep the fight going

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Yeah based on the history of al Qaeda in Iraq, they probably *are* planning on attacking the US. That said, it's also true that the threat of al Qaeda is exaggerated to justify offensive military action and some kind of "police state."

I don't like the naive view of anti-Imperialism that makes it out to be that any terrorist organization doesn't really exist, or isn't really reactionary. No, that's not an issue, or an interesting argument. What's more interesting is how American Imperialism acts as a recruiting and fundraising bonanza for groups like al Qaeda.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

lol the 80s were 30 years ago, a lot has happened since then and its not like proxy warriors have never gone rogue before. al-qaeda is certainly aligned against the west, but of course they're happy to take their money and guns to keep the fight going

Why would the US not keep ties on an investment that is in the billions? Most especially when they've been incredibly useful in Libya and elsewhere?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

lol the 80s were 30 years ago, a lot has happened since then

I know. I'm seriously getting old. Y'know what wasn't thirty years ago, though? Al-Qaeda operations in support of imperialist interest in Somalia, Libya, Syria, China etc.


Why would the US not keep ties on an investment that is in the billions? Most especially when they've been incredibly useful in Libya and elsewhere?

I don't think the US controls al-Qaeda, nor is that necessary for al-Qaeda to be an objectively pro-imperialist organization. The "Islamic Revolution" in Iran was subjectively anti-American and the mullahs certainly didn't take orders from the White House; this doesn't mean that the clerical regime in Iran wasn't part of the imperialist encirclement of the Soviet Union.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I don't think the US controls al-Qaeda, nor is that necessary for al-Qaeda to be an objectively pro-imperialist organization. The "Islamic Revolution" in Iran was subjectively anti-American and the mullahs certainly didn't take orders from the White House; this doesn't mean that the clerical regime in Iran wasn't part of the imperialist encirclement of the Soviet Union.

That's apples and oranges though. The US installed the Shah so of course the situation in Iran was way different than the CIA giving bin Laden and crew high security level training during the whole battle over Afghanistan against the Soviets.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

That's apples and oranges though. The US installed the Shah so of course the situation in Iran was way different than the CIA giving bin Laden and crew high security level training during the whole battle over Afghanistan against the Soviets.

I know; my point was that, even if this sort of support has been discontinued (I'm agnostic about that; I don't think it's likely but then again, I probably would have said the same during Iran-Contra) al-Qaeda remains a pro-imperialist organization due to its ideological and social background.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I know; my point was that, even if this sort of support has been discontinued (I'm agnostic about that; I don't think it's likely but then again, I probably would have said the same during Iran-Contra) al-Qaeda remains a pro-imperialist organization due to its ideological and social background.

I think I can agree with that on the face of it.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Why would the US not keep ties on an investment that is in the billions? Most especially when they've been incredibly useful in Libya and elsewhere?

Al Qaeda is an unpredictable and unaccountable entity. The US supported Islamists in the 80s in Afghanistan but this support dried up at the end of the Cold War.

The US wanted Gaddafi gone in Libya, but that doesn't mean they wanted al Qaeda to take over instead. Look at what Islamist militants did to the US diplomatic mission there as evidence of that. Or the high casualties faced by US forces in Iraq to al Qaeda affiliated militants, and the continuing threat they pose to US influence in Iraq. The point is that two groups might have similar short-term interests and different long-term interests. A good example of this is Syria. Al Qaeda and the US both want Assad gone, but the US fears an al Qaeda takeover more than they want Assad gone (which you can see in a lot of foreign policy analysis coming out of DC these days)

[bcbm]

Why would the US not keep ties on an investment that is in the billions? Most especially when they've been incredibly useful in Libya and elsewhere?

not to be rude but as we've seen in the past our perspectives on this sort of thing are basically completely incompatible so it isn't worth really discussing beyond saying if they are controlling aq they are doing a very, very poor job.


I know. I'm seriously getting old. Y'know what wasn't thirty years ago, though? Al-Qaeda operations in support of imperialist interest in Somalia, Libya, Syria, China etc.

youre looking at this in too short a time frame, look at al-qaedas long term strategy documents. getting rid of assad or qaddafi is 'in support of imperialist interest' in that it takes out their old enemies and weakens russia's position but turning these places into ungovernable hells or part of a network of sharia ruled rogue states is hardly something the west wants.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

youre looking at this in too short a time frame, look at al-qaedas long term strategy documents. getting rid of assad or qaddafi is 'in support of imperialist interest' in that it takes out their old enemies and weakens russia's position but turning these places into ungovernable hells or part of a network of sharia ruled rogue states is hardly something the west wants.

"Rogue state" is meaningless neocon gibberish. Iraq and Iran were "rogue states" since the seventies, but they still bought American and French military equipment like it was going out of style. Afghanistan, too, was a "rogue state" once the freedom-loving Mujahedin, supported by over half of this site probably, won the civil war, but that didn't stop commercial relations with Pakistan and the drug trade. Need I go on? The states of the imperial metropole don't care if a region is "ungovernable", and they certainly don't care about how the legal system treats women and gay people; what they care about is the possibility of capital export. That possibility exists in Islamist theocracies - just look at Wahhabi Arabia.

First I'm too focused on the past, now I'm too focused on the present - all in all it looks like an attempt to portray al-Qaeda as "anti-imperialist" no matter what, like what MIM did, bless him.

[Alexios]

Interests: Explosions and Destruction, oh and jacking off.Yup, this user sure looks genuine.

[AmilcarCabral]

The Unknown: You are right. In the capitalist right-wing TV news channels and capitalist newspapers you hear the words "dictatorship" "dictator" "rogue states" as peyorative terms for nations that have some form of state-capitalism economic model (corporations owned by the government) which are a threat to the profits and incomes of multinational corporations which benefit from nations that have neoliberal-capitalist economic models that are not a threat to the profits of multinational corporations. That's why Joe Biden, Joe Kerry, Hillary Clinton and all blue dog democratic party politicians who are the only ones who have a voice in the US government are so libertarians, hardcore believers in the invisible hands of the Ayn Rand and Adam Smith markets (Not the liberal wing democratic party politicians).

But all governments are really class-dictatorships, a dictatorship of one interest group and class exercising a dictatorship over the majority. People in America are so dumb, they think Francisco Franco of Spain was a dictator, while Obama is so good and nice with his nice face and he is not a dictators according to to CNN and the capitalist mainstream media for the slaves. How naive and stupid americans are. When we all know that all governments are dictatorships.


.



"Rogue state" is meaningless neocon gibberish. Iraq and Iran were "rogue states" since the seventies, but they still bought American and French military equipment like it was going out of style. Afghanistan, too, was a "rogue state" once the freedom-loving Mujahedin, supported by over half of this site probably, won the civil war, but that didn't stop commercial relations with Pakistan and the drug trade. Need I go on? The states of the imperial metropole don't care if a region is "ungovernable", and they certainly don't care about how the legal system treats women and gay people; what they care about is the possibility of capital export. That possibility exists in Islamist theocracies - just look at Wahhabi Arabia.

First I'm too focused on the past, now I'm too focused on the present - all in all it looks like an attempt to portray al-Qaeda as "anti-imperialist" no matter what, like what MIM did, bless him.

[AmilcarCabral]

You are right, and something you never hear in the capitalist media is economic neoliberal terrorism being perperated against the low-income population and the oppressed races of USA. You never hear in the US media how black people are freezing to death because they don't have enough money to use their heater in the terrorizing winter months. Terrorism means inflicted pain against civilians. The oppressed low income americans, specially blacks, latinos and other oppressed races are suffering right a real painful form of a subtle economic terrorism that is a lot worse than 9-11 and bombs because that kind of terrorism has a lot more visibility, but there are millions and millions of americans right now suffering and nobody is even paying attention to that terrorism like with tooth aches, stomach aches, back aches, pain in their skin and whole body (because they can't use their heater). What a damn country to live in the USA is. One of the most painful countries of the whole world.

And the problem i see with economic terrorism, like not being able to go a dentist for a tooth-ache or not being able to use your heater in the cold months is that nobody in USA (Not even the progressive alternative news sources) care about it.


.




Oh dear, looks like I need to make my life more fear-based!

Seriously though I know this is pretty fatalist but for a terrorist attack in the immediate future, we're pretty much at the mercy of our bourgeois government as to whether or not it will be prevented. They'll probably fuck things up and there's not much that we can do, so there's not much point in trying to avoid it. In the long term our movement can strengthen, but we probably can't change a whole lot structurally in the short period of time before such an attack happens, if this is even legitimate.

[Sea]

So this implies that previously they didn't want to attack the US? Well fuck me, I guess we didn't need all that spy shit after all. :rolleyes:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

"Rogue state" is meaningless neocon gibberish. Iraq and Iran were "rogue states" since the seventies, but they still bought American and French military equipment like it was going out of style. Afghanistan, too, was a "rogue state" once the freedom-loving Mujahedin, supported by over half of this site probably, won the civil war, but that didn't stop commercial relations with Pakistan and the drug trade. Need I go on? The states of the imperial metropole don't care if a region is "ungovernable", and they certainly don't care about how the legal system treats women and gay people; what they care about is the possibility of capital export. That possibility exists in Islamist theocracies - just look at Wahhabi Arabia.


Then why did the US fight three expensive and largely unproductive wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, and spend a disproportionate amount of defense spending on Iran and North Korea if these states aren't viewed by the US as unpredictable and impossible to work with? The whole point of "rogue state" rhetoric was as a way of justifying the political and economic costs of trying to limit the pretensions of unconventional governments that in some way destabilized the current global hegemony.

"wahabi Arabia" is not a "rogue state". On the contrary, the Saudis have been among the best allies of American Imperialism. What's more interesting is the way that American and Saudi national interests have diverged on some of these so-called "Rogue" movements.


The Unknown: You are right. In the capitalist right-wing TV news channels and capitalist newspapers you hear the words "dictatorship" "dictator" "rogue states" as peyorative terms for nations that have some form of state-capitalism economic model (corporations owned by the government) which are a threat to the profits and incomes of multinational corporations which benefit from nations that have neoliberal-capitalist economic models that are not a threat to the profits of multinational corporations. That's why Joe Biden, Joe Kerry, Hillary Clinton and all blue dog democratic party politicians who are the only ones who have a voice in the US government are so libertarians, hardcore believers in the invisible hands of the Ayn Rand and Adam Smith markets (Not the liberal wing democratic party politicians).


You are confusing "liberal" with "libertarian". "Liberalism" is an idea which predates Rand's movement and has a much more diverse history (Rand's view is just a particular take on liberalism - one which most Conservatives don't even live to fully.)



But all governments are really class-dictatorships, a dictatorship of one interest group and class exercising a dictatorship over the majority. People in America are so dumb, they think Francisco Franco of Spain was a dictator, while Obama is so good and nice with his nice face and he is not a dictators according to to CNN and the capitalist mainstream media for the slaves. How naive and stupid americans are. When we all know that all governments are dictatorships.The whole idea of a "class dictatorship" is that the dictatorship is of an economic class. Obama isn't really the "dictator" of America, he's an elected representative in a government designed to manage the interests of the bourgeoisie. Neither Obama or Bush were "dictators".

[bcbm]

"Rogue state" is meaningless neocon gibberish. Iraq and Iran were "rogue states" since the seventies, but they still bought American and French military equipment like it was going out of style. Afghanistan, too, was a "rogue state" once the freedom-loving Mujahedin, supported by over half of this site probably, won the civil war, but that didn't stop commercial relations with Pakistan and the drug trade. Need I go on? The states of the imperial metropole don't care if a region is "ungovernable", and they certainly don't care about how the legal system treats women and gay people; what they care about is the possibility of capital export. That possibility exists in Islamist theocracies - just look at Wahhabi Arabia.

they would probably be somewhat concerned by states focused on churning out ever more people intent on causing mass carnage within the states of the imperial metropole, which is more or less the goal of the whole enterprise and the sense in which i am using 'rogue state,' not that nobody will trade with these states.


First I'm too focused on the past, now I'm too focused on the present - all in all it looks like an attempt to portray al-Qaeda as "anti-imperialist" no matter what, like what MIM did, bless him.

al-qaeda is aligned against the west even if their goals occasionally overlap, i really don't think that is too outlandish a claim to make

[RedWaves]

They want to attack America? No fucking shit! Did he just figure that out?


This is America's problem and they created it. It all goes back to those glory days under Ronald Reagan and his "freedom fighters". They put the guns and the money in the hands of the terrorists that attacked them on 9/11 and all it really did was bring reality to Americans live. Before 9/11 I doubt most Americans even knew Iraq and Afghanistan existed on maps. I don't know why Reagan's administration don't get blamed for a majority of 9/11, even by the retarded conspiracy crowd with their balls to the wall claims about Jews or explosions cause it, cause there is plenty of evidence to build claims over Reagan and how he loved the Taliban. They even made a Rambo movie about Bin Laden and how much he loved freedom and killin' dem commie invaders comin' ta take ova da country.

If anything, America is lucky there hasn't been a hundred 9/11's. I know the defense budget we have that is through the roof is supposed to prevent that from happening, but even before 9/11 we started to become more and more of a police state, and we still have this type of stuff happens. For as many bombs America drops on other countries and slaughters innocent people all in the name of big business and greed, they are extremely lucky there hasn't been multiple attacks on America, cause it could easily happen. We will hear about those successful white people that died on 9/11 for the next hundred fucking years, but meanwhile they turn a blind eye to those poor brown people that they slaughter in the middle east.

The U.S.'s imperalistic militarization of the world has kept capitalism floating since WW2. This machine is so out of control, the only reason they don't attack North Korea is because North Korea don't take no fucking shit and has nuclear capabilities, same for Iran. That's why they pick on these little countries they can suck dry of oil and commit genocide to their people.

But the idea is still there that these Muslims living half way across the fucking world want to kill us. Americans will deal with someone putting a gun to their head, or threatening them in person, but when it comes to the invisible gun put to your head and the money slavery, they won't do a thing about it.

[Sinister Intents]

They want to attack America? No fucking shit! Did he just figure that out?


This is America's problem and they created it. It all goes back to those glory days under Ronald Reagan and his "freedom fighters". They put the guns and the money in the hands of the terrorists that attacked them on 9/11 and all it really did was bring reality to Americans live. Before 9/11 I doubt most Americans even knew Iraq and Afghanistan existed on maps. I don't know why Reagan's administration don't get blamed for a majority of 9/11, even by the retarded conspiracy crowd with their balls to the wall claims about Jews or explosions cause it, cause there is plenty of evidence to build claims over Reagan and how he loved the Taliban. They even made a Rambo movie about Bin Laden and how much he loved freedom and killin' dem commie invaders comin' ta take ova da country.


The U.S.'s imperalistic militarization of the world has kept capitalism floating since WW2. This machine is so out of control, the only reason they don't attack North Korea is because North Korea don't take no fucking shit and has nuclear capabilities, same for Iran. That's why they pick on these little countries they can suck dry of oil and commit genocide to their people.

But the idea is still there that these Muslims living half way across the fucking world want to kill us. Americans will deal with someone putting a gun to their head, or threatening them in person, but when it comes to the invisible gun put to your head and the money slavery, they won't do a thing about it.

Ableist language is not fucking tolerated here. Don't use the word 'retard'. I find it highly offensive and it pisses me off. I reported your post.

I see everything else you're saying though, and I've heard a lot of the same stuff from my liberal family. I hate Ronny Raygun as well btw.

[bcbm]

This is America's problem and they created it. It all goes back to those glory days under Ronald Reagan and his "freedom fighters". They put the guns and the money in the hands of the terrorists that attacked them on 9/11 and all it really did was bring reality to Americans live.

you could blame america for sayyid qutb in a roundabout way, but the real issues here lay much, much deeper than afghanistan in the 80s and most of the funding (and even training) is not from the us.


Before 9/11 I doubt most Americans even knew Iraq and Afghanistan existed on maps.

they were probably aware of iraq because of that 'first gulf war' thing


claims over Reagan and how he loved the Taliban.

the taliban didn't exist when reagan was in office.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Then why did the US fight three expensive and largely unproductive wars against Iraq and Afghanistan [...]

Unproductive? The imperialist bourgeoisie made a killing on those wars; from the standpoint of imperialist capitalism they were hardly unproductive. States of the metropole might attack states dependent on imperialism for any number of reasons, mostly stemming from the redivision of the world market. This doesn't make the leadership of the dependent states "objectively anti-imperialist" - by that logic, the Vichy government was "objectively anti-fascist".


[...] and spend a disproportionate amount of defense spending on Iran and North Korea if these states aren't viewed by the US as unpredictable and impossible to work with?

Defense spending is usually quite beneficial for the bourgeoisie. If there were no North Koreas one would have to be invented.


"wahabi Arabia" is not a "rogue state". On the contrary, the Saudis have been among the best allies of American Imperialism. What's more interesting is the way that American and Saudi national interests have diverged on some of these so-called "Rogue" movements.

I never said the Saud fiefdom was a "rogue state" in State Department parlance; I'm simply pointing out how ridiculous the idea that the formation of Islamist theocracies is something America opposes is.


they would probably be somewhat concerned by states focused on churning out ever more people intent on causing mass carnage within the states of the imperial metropole, which is more or less the goal of the whole enterprise and the sense in which i am using 'rogue state,' not that nobody will trade with these states.

Why would they? American-sponsored groups have routinely killed Americans.


al-qaeda is aligned against the west even if their goals occasionally overlap, i really don't think that is too outlandish a claim to make

It is outlandish given that the overlap started when al-Qaeda was founded and continues to this day.

[bcbm]

Why would they? American-sponsored groups have routinely killed Americans.

p sure they dont want more suicide bombings or worse in their cities but i guess i could be wrong


It is outlandish given that the overlap started when al-Qaeda was founded and continues to this day.

i guess if you believe that al qaeda is all lying patsies and history didnt happen maybe

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

p sure they dont want more suicide bombings or worse in their cities but i guess i could be wrong

I'm pretty sure you are - the police apparatus of a bourgeois state isn't concerned with protecting citizens but the class rule of the bourgeoisie. Bombings don't threaten that class rule.


i guess if you believe that al qaeda is all lying patsies and history didnt happen maybe

What history? Sure, the U.S. government and al-Qaeda would attack each other from time to time, but more often the former would advance the interests of the latter, as it does to this day.

[bcbm]

if u say so

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Unproductive? The imperialist bourgeoisie made a killing on those wars; from the standpoint of imperialist capitalism they were hardly unproductive.


The military-industrial complex is only one aspect of the bourgeoisie. Long-term occupations tend to be bloody and costly and dry up the resources of a state, even if they benefit a bunch of defense contractors. This is just historical fact (look at what happened to debt ridden Britain post - WWI and WWII). That is why so many liberals are anti-war and anti-intervention.

It's true that the existence of military spending creates an interest group which benefits from continued global struggle and strife, but from the point of view of much of the rest of capital, war can be a risky proposition. One cannot conclude from it that the bourgeoisie benefits from war like some kind of law of nature. The Capitalist class historically has been ruined by the various debt crises or the military, social and economic devastation wrought by war.


States of the metropole might attack states dependent on imperialism for any number of reasons, mostly stemming from the redivision of the world market. This doesn't make the leadership of the dependent states "objectively anti-imperialist" - by that logic, the Vichy government was "objectively anti-fascist".What? What do you mean by "objectively anti-Imperialist" and how is the Vichy government an analogy for anything I'm talking about? I'm not saying Iraq was anti-Imperialist, just that his government was viewed as unpredictable and therefore a destabilizing factor by the US. That's the whole idea of the "rogue state" - it's a nation which is not really anti-Imperialist per se, it is just counterproductive to whatever hegemonic interests certain world powers have in global economic stability and the global markets.



Defense spending is usually quite beneficial for the bourgeoisie. If there were no North Koreas one would have to be invented.
Again it's more complicated than that. Defense spending is efficient for certain companies but not the bourgeoisie as a whole. You might as well build a big pit and throw gold in it - you get the same returns as you do by buying a whole crapload of useless, heavily armored tanks, planes and bombs which either never get used or get blown up without actually producing anything of value to be exchanged. The military ultimately just siphons resources from one group of Capitalists to another - particularly, from those who don't build tanks to those who do.

That is why defense issues usually target countries which challenge something important to certain American businesses, like sending guns to the Contras to protect America's economic interest in Nicaragua. I don't want to say that the military industrial complex doesn't drive conflicts or exaggerate them for its own economic interests, but it's vital to see how there is generally a need to seek out common interests on these issues because militarism without broader economic returns brings suspicions from the bourgeoisie (hence why there are significant anti-militaristic factions among liberal capitalist institutions)



I never said the Saud fiefdom was a "rogue state" in State Department parlance; I'm simply pointing out how ridiculous the idea that the formation of Islamist theocracies is something America opposes is.
No but Islamic theocracy is separate from the "rogue state" so then it's unclear why you bring it up.