Massive car bombing in Iraq kills at least 90 people. AFP.

Iraqi civilians inspect the crater left by the blast. Yahoo/AFP.

A massive car bomb exploded in the town of Khan Bani Saad killing at least 90 people and wounding 120. AFP. At least 15 children died in the blast and a further 15 to 20 people are still missing. The Islamic State has taken credit for the attack. A suicide bomber detonated three tons of explosives in he vehicle he was driving at a checkpoint near the town's main market Khan Bani Saad is 12 miles north of Bagdhad and is dominated by Shiite Muslims. The attack coincided with the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and the Eid al-Fiter holiday. ISIS said that it was targeting Shiite Muslims in the attack. Khan Bani Saad is located in the Diyala province, which was liberated from ISIS in January. Though ISIS is no longer in control of the territory, they still have an operational presence and have reverted to their old strategy of hit and run attacks and suicide bombings. 

My Comment:

It sounds like Ramadan is finally over. It's been a hell of a month. Just to recap there was a beheading in France, a mass shooting in Tunisia, a huge car bombing in Kuwait, a major raid on Kobani in Syria, another major bombing in Hasakah, a major offensive in Egypt along with the murder of a high ranking prosecutor, and possibly the attack in Chattanooga the other day. I'm not counting all the normal battles and minor attacks that I may be forgetting. That's a hell of a butchers bill. ISIS promised to make Ramadan a bloody one, and it looks like they succeeded. 

As for the attack itself, it's quite a  bad one. I think the casualty numbers will probably increase in time. A three ton car bomb is incredibly powerful, and in a crowded place like a market it can do quite a bit of damage. This isn't the first time this has happened as markets like this were always a prime bombing target during the earlier stages of the Iraq War. You would think after all this time, the Iraqis would find a better way to do their shopping then an outdoor market, but hindsight is always 20/20. 

The attack also brings up an important point. Even after ISIS is pushed out of a region, they still have the ability to strike. They are still able to do bombings like this, even months after they lost control of the province. And it's not hard to see why. Either they infiltrated back in or they left a few people behind to cause chaos. You can't completely defend against either, and even if you try people will slip through. It's a lot like the raid on Kobani. ISIS lost the original battle after months of siege warfare, but just last month they came back with a vengeance. It was a suicide mission that resulted in the death of most or all of the attackers, but they still managed to cause quite a bit of chaos. Expect more of this as ISIS loses territory in Iraq. 

Car bombings in Iraq are nothing new, but this seems to be a return to form for ISIS. In the recent past, most ISIS car bombings were military style raids as opposed to strait terrorism. They would use multiple car bombs to strike the enemy lines, blowing a hole which infantry and light vehicles could attack through. That's how they captured Ramadi, but in this case no further attack occurred. 

You would think that ISIS would have stuck with that tactic, considering how effective it was. Though this attack had political and propaganda purposes, I almost wonder if it was a waste of resources for ISIS. Perhaps ISIS has no new offensives planed for the time being, but if they did it would make sense for them to use the explosives and manpower in that attack instead of a militarily pointless attack on civilians. 

The scary thing is that ISIS probably knows that this bombing would have been more effective militarily if they had targeted Iraqi security forces instead of civilians. They just don't care. For them, killing Shiite Muslims on their most important holiday is much more important then any military victory this car bomb could have given them. That is some serious hate, and I don't know how you can counter that. 

Just a reminder, Gawker is terrible.

Not going to go very in depth with this but the big news right now is that Gawker helped a gay escort blackmail former Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner's brother, David. They alleged that David had tried to pay the gay pornstar for sex but he backed out when it became clear that the man wanted help with a HUD complaint alleging housing discrimination. David wouldn't pay so the escort went to Gawker who ended up publishing everything. (I won't link to the article because I don't want Gawker to get any money from anyone who reads this blog, but here is an archive link.)

Almost everyone agrees that this was a terrible thing to do. First of all, this isn't newsworthy at all. David Geithner is a private citizen and it shouldn't matter to anyone if he is gay or not. And there is quite a bit of doubt that he even is gay, since Gawker isn't really known for high journalistic standards. But a private citizen having a gay affair, even if it did happen, is not something the news media should concern themselves with. And outing a gay man for no good reason is not a good thing, nobody benefits.  If this was a politician and not some guy that was related to a politician, then this might be newsworthy. But David Geithner is not a politician. He is an executive at Conde Nast, which is a competitor of Gawker's so I am not surprised this was published.

Second, this story might not even be true. All they have for evidence is a bunch of easily altered texts and a bunch of meaningless photos. And I have been hearing some chatter on Twitter, Reddit (ugh) and other places that the source of the story might have been a very determined troll. None of those sources are reliable at this point, so take it with a huge grain of salt, but it still casts doubt on this story. If it is a lie they will have one hell of a libel case on their hands.

So why should I even care about what Gakwer does? After all this blog is mostly about warfare and politics, not the ravings of Gawker. Well, I think holding the media accountable is important, especially when they do stuff like this. We wouldn't tolerate a private citizen trying to blackmail anyone, why would we tolerate it from our news media? Though Gawker is tabloid tier at best (I would never use them as a source for this blog), they are still relatively popular and thousands of people read their sites. If Gawker suffers for this debacle and go out of business then perhaps other news outlets will think twice before they decide to publicly shame someone for no reason whatsoever. I know it has become a cliche but ethics in journalism is important. You don't attack a random person like this for no good reason.

They are also complete hypocrites as well. Back when Gamergate happened they were all about how it was wrong to publish details about the sex scandal that kicked the whole thing off, but they have no problem with this scandal. And when the Jennifer Lawrence photos leaked they said everyone that looked at them were basically sex offenders, but they proudly hosted Hulk Hogan's sex tape. They claim that they are a progressive website, but they just outed a presumably gay man and helped to blackmail him. Or they libeled a straight man.

Either way Gawker deserves to burn and I really hope that anyone reading this will avoid visiting Gawker in the future. I also like how so many people on Twitter are denouncing this story for what it is. It's not often I find myself agreeing with someone like Lena Dunham, but in this case she is right. Gawker really isn't something people should be reading if this is the quality of writing they are going to put out.

I also have to say that if the story is true, it made Ted Cruz, of all people, look like a decent guy. The alleged blackmailer had asked Cruz for help with his discrimination claim and it sounds like Cruz really went to bat for him. From what it sounds like Cruz, or more likely his staffers, knew the man was gay and was being discriminated against because of his sexuality. If there is a bright spot in any of this it is the fact that Cruz did his job whatever his reservations are about homosexuality.

Gunman attacks military facilities in Chattanooga Tennessee. Yahoo News.

The Marine recruitment station that was attack. Note the gun-free sign. Yahoo News/April Grimmett.

A gunman has attacked two military instillation in Chattanooga Tennessee, killing four Marines before getting killed himself. Yahoo News. The suspect, 24 year old Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez, has been identified by the FBI. Abdulazeez is a suspected radical who had a blog that routinely posted in favor of radical Islam. His father had also been under investigation for suspected ties to terrorists organizations, but was eventually cleared. Abdulazeez started his rampage by shooting at a National Guard office, firing 20 shots but hitting no one. He then traveled seven miles to the Chattanooga Naval recruitment station and opened fire there from his Mustang convertible. Police then shot the suspect dead. 

My Comment:

Looks like yet another ISIS inspired lone wolf terror attack. Given the nature of the targets and the fact that Abdulazeez ran a radical blog in support of Jihadism, I think it's a safe bet that this was motivated by radical Islam. From what I understand the suspect was a naturalized citizen and his family was fairly radical. The women in the family were forced to cover their hair and the father was investigated for radical ties. 

Of course the government is reluctant to call this Islamic Terrorism. To be fair, it is still early in the investigation and there is always a chance that something else was the motivation. But at this point it is incredibly unlikely to be anything else. So why not call it what it is? Political correctness. You can't suggest that one Muslim is a terrorist or those who have more time and outrage then common sense will accuse you of blaming all Muslims for terrorism. 

My post last night touched on the issue of attacks on military bases. France just broke up a plot targeting their military which had the goal of decapitating a high ranking officer. In that post I said that military bases aren't really "hard targets" but they are more difficult to attack then other places. Recruitment stations are even less defended then military bases. I think I was still right though to call military bases semi-hard targets. At least at the military bases you have people trained to fight, even if they don't have any weapons.

And of course this shooting happened at a gun free zone. I'm not sure if the military had guns at this station, but their "no guns" sign is clearly visible in the picture up there. There was no chance of the civilians in the area having a gun to defend themselves and it seems like the Marines didn't have any weapons either. I know back when I talked to the Army about maybe signing up, there were M-4 rifles just sitting around, though I'm not sure if they had any ammunition. I don't know if that is the case now though. It is true though that nobody that was their to sign up had a gun though.

It just seems crazy to me that after so many attacks on military instillation that there isn't better security. You would think the government would trust troops that have been specifically trained to handle firearms to handle firearms. Even if they don't trust the enlisted to carry firearms, you would think they would let officers and NCO's to carry sidearms. After all, this isn't the first time someone has attacked military facilities. There was the Fort Hood shooting, the Washington Naval yard shooting and more then a few shootings at recruiting stations. If it were up to me I'd lift the ban on firearms and force NCO's and Officers to carry sidearms whenever they are at work.

I don't think this will be the last attack on military bases in the United States and abroad. This attack and the others have shown how bad security is at these places, making them relatively soft targets. And attacking them is a huge propaganda coup. After all, shooting up a recruitment station shows that even the military is vulnerable to terrorist attacks. And ISIS has called for attacks on U.S. soldiers (and Marines, Sailors and Airmen), so there is even more motivation to attack these bases then there would be normally.

The attack also shows that ISIS does not need to actually be in America to attack America. Much like many of the recent terror attacks, Abdulazeez self-radicalized. He didn't even need to read ISIS propaganda because he was making his own. The fear is that this attack, which was more successful then other recent attacks in America, will inspire more of the same... 

France foils terror plot against military bases. The Guardian.

French Interior Minster Bernard Cazeneuve. The Guardian/AFP/Getty

France has foiled a terror plot targeting military bases and have arrested four suspects. The Guardian. The arrests happened on Monday and targets four men between the ages of 16 and 23. Their plan was to attack a military base and decapitate a high ranking officer and film the death on camera. The plan unraveled after their activities were discovered online. No link has been found between the suspects and other recent Jihadi activities in France. France claims that similar plots are broken up "every week" and over 300 people have been arrested since 2012 for Jihadi activities.

My Comment:

It doesn't sound like this attack was going to happen anytime soon, but it is still good that the attack was broken up. I also don't have a clue how it was supposed to work. After all, breaking into a military base isn't easy, and getting close to a commanding officer would even be harder. I don't know what the security situation is at French bases, but I assume they have some armed guards. 

On the other hand, in the United States there have been several attacks committed at U.S. military bases that resulted in multiple  deaths. One of these, the attack on Fort Hood, by Nidal Hasan, was related to radical Islam, but another, the Washington Navy Yard shooting, was just a lone nut. But it does show how even military installations can be vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Contrary to popular perceptions, very few people at military bases are actually armed. I'd assume that is just as true in France as it is in America. Still, military bases, while not quite as difficult to attack as one might think, are still harder targets then other potential locations for terrorist attacks.

France has been a huge target for terrorism for quite some time. They have had more then a few major terror attacks, the most notable being the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Why? Well for one thing they have been a huge supporter of the United States in the War on Terror. Yes, they sat out the Iraq War but they were a major ally in Afghanistan and have joined the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Their foreign policy is fairly unpopular among radical Islamists for obvious reasons. 

France also has a large, poorly integrated and easily radicalized Muslim population. The Muslims in France aren't treated all that well, but even if they were, they are still at risk of being radicalized. Many Muslims in France have left to fight in Syria, Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East. Like the Charlie Hebdo killers, it is feared that they will come back at commit terror attacks. 

France is also at a higher risk for lone wolf terror attacks. Just like the recent attack where a man was decapitated, it is possible for people to commit terror attacks in France with little to no help from terrorist organizations. That's true for any country, but with France's large population of poorly integrated Muslims, it's a bigger threat.

As for the next big terror attack, it's a good bet that it is going to be in Europe. France is certainly a leading candidate, but it could also be the United Kingdom as well. They have all the problems with poorly integrated Muslims as France has, but in my perception their radicals are even worse then the ones in France. 

The good news is that the vast majority of these attacks seem to fall apart before they can happen, or fail. If France really is breaking up these threats every week, then they are doing a great job at disrupting these attacks before then happen. But even the attacks that have happened lately have largely failed, or only killed one or two people besides the attackers. That's good news because terrorism doesn't work without spectacular attacks. 

A deal has been reached concerning Iran's nuclear program. AP

World diplomats pose for a photo after the historic nuclear deal for Iran. Yahoo/AP.

Iran and the international community have reached an agreement concerning their nuclear program. AP. Iran has agreed to restrict their nuclear ambitions in exchange for the end of sanctions. The agreement is said to prevent Iran from producing nuclear materials for 10 years and will force them to accept inspections as a condition. The arms embargo placed on Iran will continue for 5 more years and military sites can be inspected as well. The deal now faces opposition in US congress, which is likely to do everything they can to undermine the deal. U.S. allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia and Israel are furious and consider the deal to be a huge mistake. The deal is a likely economic windfall for Iran. They could gain up to $100 billion due to the end of economic sanctions and the release of seized overseas funds.

My Comment:

That last sentence should tell you that Iran is the one winning in this deal. Those sanctions were in place due to other things besides their nuclear program, or, at the very least, they should have been. Iran has a long history of being terrible, both to its people and to everyone else in the region. Keep in mind that we were in a de-facto war with Iran during our adventure in Iraq. Iranian backed militias, the same that are now fighting in Iraq as our ersatz allies, killed American soldiers during the Iraq War.

And that's not even touching what they do to their own people. Iran cracked down hard on their own people when they protested election results back in 2011. Their treatment of homosexuals is abysmal. Gay men in Iran are given a choice. Become transgender and transition into a woman or be executed. Iran also has treated religious minorities poorly as well. In short, the Iranian government has done a lot of bad things unrelated to its nuclear program.

So will this deal accomplish anything? Well I can think of a lot of bad things that will come from this deal. First and foremost, Israel and Saudi Arabia will have some kind of response. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a war. For both countries, a nuclear Iran is an existential threat, that will not be taken lightly. It may also cause the Saudis to start their own nuclear program or buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan, leading to an arms race in the region. There is a real possibility of a cold war in the region. 

Second, it could allow the Iranians to keep up their military adventures in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Yes there is still an arms embargo, but the billions of dollars that the Iranians will receive because of this deal will be spent somewhere. And right now Iran's goal is to become the premier power in the middle east. It is very possible that they will now be able to afford to prop up the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and make gains in Yemen, which could destabilize Saudi Arabia. That is, of course, not in the United States best interests.

Finally, I think the inspections will be pointless. Sure, official sites will be monitored but Iran managed to get a loophole. They are able to delay or contest any inspections of military sites, which would of course give them a chance hide what they are doing. It may make Iran's nuclear ambitions a bit harder to pull off, but they won't stop them entirely. 

So if the deal has some pretty obvious downsides why did it get approved? Well there are a couple of reasons. First, Obama really wants to do something to salvage his foreign policy legacy. Ending the conflict between Iran and the United States would be quite a feather in his hat... if it holds. Already there are rumors flying of Congress torpedoing the deal, so it is too soon to tell if it will even happen, but even if it does, what the legacy going to be if war between Iran and its neighbors is the final result of this deal? Don't get me wrong, that's not what I want to have happen, but I do think it is possible. 

But there is another more important reason for the deal and that is money. There is a massive amount of money to make in Iran. Not only are they going to export their oil, which should lower oil prices worldwide, they are going to be a huge market for international corporations which have, until now, been forbidden to trade in Iran. Everyone involved in these negotiations want a piece of the $100 billion pie which has just been unleashed. Some of that money is going to be reinvested into Iran and everyone wants in on that action. 

To summarize, America is pissing off our allies and turning a blind eye to Iran's obvious and terrible human rights abuses just so they can make a little cash. That is what is known in Political Science as realpolitik. It's ok to sell out your friends and risk a regional war if it means you can make a few bucks and secure your legacy if you happen to be an unpopular president.Even if it means you have to work with a country that is opposed to most everything you believe int. Not that Saudi Arabia and Israel are that great of allies and have their own human rights issues, but they are certainly better then Iran.

Time will tell how bad this will get. The best case scenario is an acceleration of the already brewing cold war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The worst case scenario is a shooting war between Iran and Israel, Saudi Arabia, or even both. And since one of those countries is a nuclear power and the other two have aspirations, this could get very ugly indeed... I'd love to think that everything will work out fine and that this deal will usher in a new era of peace in the Middle East, but I don't think anyone really believes that. Any positives from this deal will be short term and is merely kicking the can down the road for the next generation to deal with...