ISIS - Who da f*ck are you?

[shickingbrits]

[mrswdk]

Scotland's not colonizing lands beyond its borders, is it? It's seceding from G.B. That's like... anti-imperialism. You wouldn't call former colonies, which secede from their masters, imperialistic, would you? That wouldn't make sense.

I never said that Scotland was currently trying to colonize anything.

'Imperilaism, as it is defined by the Oxford Dictionaries, is a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means.'

Do you no longer stand by this definition?

Generally, imperialism refers to expansion through military conquest, colonization, etc. That's why people don't balk at the saying, "China was an empire" because it was. It leaned on neighboring powers for tribute and has a lovely history of conquering and colonizing lands. To this day, it even manages at least three colonies! (Tibet, Xinjiang, and... Northeast Mongolia--or whatever they call it), and it would love to conquer Taiwan.

1 - tribute was something other people had to give China in order to start trading with China. If you didn't want to trade with China, there was no need to pay tribute. There was no 'leaning on people for tribute'.

2 - Mongolia and the rest of China merged because the Khans invaded China and merged the two. That is basically the total opposite of China running off and colonizing other people.

3 - Xinjiang, Tibet and Taiwan? Haha, okay! And California is a US colony! Ukraine's claim to Crimea is colonial! Everyone's an empire!

Currently, China is building the means to project its power farther, and it's getting pushy about a bunch of rocks and reefs--which isn't as Grand as the Mongolian Empire, but all imperial means start with a first step.

China is building the means the protect itself and its sovereignty in its own seas. It has no desire to project its power over a wider area.

[muy_thaiguy]

Scotland's not colonizing lands beyond its borders, is it? It's seceding from G.B. That's like... anti-imperialism. You wouldn't call former colonies, which secede from their masters, imperialistic, would you? That wouldn't make sense.

I never said that Scotland was currently trying to colonize anything.

'Imperilaism, as it is defined by the Oxford Dictionaries, is a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means.'

Do you no longer stand by this definition?

Generally, imperialism refers to expansion through military conquest, colonization, etc. That's why people don't balk at the saying, "China was an empire" because it was. It leaned on neighboring powers for tribute and has a lovely history of conquering and colonizing lands. To this day, it even manages at least three colonies! (Tibet, Xinjiang, and... Northeast Mongolia--or whatever they call it), and it would love to conquer Taiwan.

1 - tribute was something other people had to give China in order to start trading with China. If you didn't want to trade with China, there was no need to pay tribute. There was no 'leaning on people for tribute'.

2 - Mongolia and the rest of China merged because the Khans invaded China and merged the two. That is basically the total opposite of China running off and colonizing other people.

3 - Xinjiang, Tibet and Taiwan? Haha, okay! And California is a US colony! Ukraine's claim to Crimea is colonial! Everyone's an empire!

Currently, China is building the means to project its power farther, and it's getting pushy about a bunch of rocks and reefs--which isn't as Grand as the Mongolian Empire, but all imperial means start with a first step.

China is building the means the protect itself and its sovereignty in its own seas. It has no desire to project its power over a wider area.

My turn.


Why? Sankaku Islands.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, basically. I love apologists of imperialism. Always lovely to see.

[mrswdk]

Hurt durr, Diaoyu Islands therefore imperialism. CNN says 'jump' and you guys say 'how high', huh?

[oVo]

In keeping with this threads revisionist history of the Japanese surrender, North Vietnam did fire on a US ship in the Gulf of Tonkin,Poland did attack Germany first and there were WMD's in Iraq.

Did you mean revisionist theory? It's believed torpedoes were fired on a US ship in the Gulf of Tonkin, but it isn't certain. Poland attacked Germany first when? The only WMD Iraq may have had were supplied by the US. The UK reported to George Bush that Saddam had WMDs, but that info was leaked by the US to them, so George Bush knew it was bogus.

_________________________ ISIS_________________________

"Unlike other terrorist groups, ISIS has grown into a sophisticated military force and is estimated to have between 10,000 and 20,000 fighters. The group now firmly controls large swaths of territory in both Syria and Iraq.”

"The threat ISIS poses cannot be overstated. This is the most vicious, well-funded and militant terrorist organization we have ever seen, and it is very quickly consolidating its power. "

"In total, the U.N. reports at least 693 child casualties at the hands of ISIS this year. And at least 2,250 women and children are currently detained by the group.

ISIS has killed, enslaved and captured thousands in its efforts at ethnic cleansing, including the Yazidis in Sinjar and the Turkmen in Amerli. Overall, more than a million Iraqis have been displaced.”

"There is an extremely high level of organization in ISIS operations and ISIS-controlled territory, almost reminiscent of a military dictatorship. ISIS controls extensive resources, military vehicles, heavy weapons and border crossings between Iraq and Syria. It has become a de facto terrorist state. Experts estimate that ISIS now has cash and assets worth $2 billion. ISIS adds as much as $1 million per day through extortion, crime, ransom and even the sale of oil on the black market from the several oil fields it controls. …

I understand that many Americans don’t want to become mired in another war. The conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have claimed thousands of American lives and cost more than $1 trillion. But Americans need to understand ISIS’ degree of viciousness as well as what will happen in the absence of U.S. leadership and action.

If the United States fails to unite and lead the world against ISIS’ horrific goals, we could suffer the consequences for decades to come.”

Sen. Diane Feinstein: Confront ISIS Now

[patches70]

Obama has announced that he wants to fight ISIS by giving weapons to ISIS. Seriously.

Obama wants to arm and train Syrian rebels to presumably fight ISIS. Now for those of you who don't actually know about ISIS' origins, you might think this is a good idea. After all, why should US soldiers be sent into Iraq to fight ISIS?* Some might bring up "unintended consequences", but in regards to ISIS I'm not too sure if it's actually "unintended". To cast light on this, it's time to actually dive into ISIS' actual origins. Let's begin!


ISIS was formerly known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq". They rebranded themselves as the Islamic State, a.k.a ISIS, ISIL, IS, etc etc etc. They are ruthless, fanatical and on a mission. That mission being killing any and all who have any other belief system than their own and to create an Islamic State under Shari'ah law. So far so good.

The story of ISIS' origins starts in 1979 when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. But to understand their origins better we'll start in 2011, in Libya. The ousting of Gaddafi. If we remember back to that time, it was Obama's first real foreign intervention adventure which was framed as an extension of the Arab Spring and NATO's involvement was framed as "humanitarian".

Now, it's common knowledge that it was the CIA working with Libyan rebels to overthrow Gaddafi-
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/cia-sends-tea ... 9-284.html
and it's common knowledge that Obama ordered airstrikes against Libyan government forces and facilities-
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/29 ... a-20110329

but does anyone remember the ideology of the rebels we were assisting in Libya? They were Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda partners, just like Gaddafi said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... links.html

The rebels that fought against Gaddafi also fought against the US during Bush Jr's war in Iraq. Or, as they were formerly known as, Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Now we the US public were told that these Libyan rebels were "moderates" that were fighting to bring a liberal democracy to Libya. With NATO's help they went ahead and defeated Gaddafi, captured him and summarily executed him. Something we were happy about-



even though Gaddafi was fighting against the very same guys who had previously been killing US troops in Iraq.

Today we know the results of our backing of these guys, as Libya today is a hellhole when during Gaddafi's time Libya had the highest standard of living of all African nations-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... 2010_1.PNG

Not so any more-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... rport.html

But apparently, at the time, it was a successful operation, we came, we saw, he died as Mrs Clinton put it so proudly. Today we now see that Libya is a failed state-
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/deadl ... te-n169331

just as people who tried to warn against the Libyan intervention said would happen.

Anyway, when Gaddafi fell the first thing that happened was Libyan armories were looted and massive amounts of weapons were sent to Syria via Turkey, a NATO ally. Many don't realize just how much weaponry was sent to Syria from Libya because the news broke three days after Ambassador Stevens was murdered-
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/worl ... 537770.ece
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/22/world ... d=all&_r=0

Stevens as you may remember was the US government's liaison to the Libyan rebels since April, 2011. Now, today we are all distracted by the argument that Stevens wasn't adequately protected, or help was refused that could have saved him and the other Americans that died, so much so that one piece of information was buried that few know about.

Few have heard of the "Rat Line". An agreement between the CIA, Turkey and the Syrian rebels to transfer weapons and ammo from Libya to Syria. This included anti tank and anti aircraft weapons and the Rat Line is the code name for the covert network to move these weapons clandestinely. The network was funded by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m- ... e-rat-line

Stevens as the Liaison to the Libyan rebels, knew about this Rat line-
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria ... ts-2012-10

With Stevens dead the US still to this day claims that no heavy weapons were shipped to Syria from Libya.

These seasoned, veteran Libyan rebels then flooded into Syria-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ction.html
and these aren't just run of the mill terrorists, these are hardened fighters who had fought in multiple theaters, experienced commanders who had learned their trade very well threw on the job training-
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/ ... lain_c.php

Now that Gaddafi was gone, the US and her allies focused on Syria and Assad, don't forget the Saudi and Qatar financial links to the Rat Line!
Qatar and Saudi Arabia have huge financial interests in toppling Assad that I have gone into great detail in the Syria thread, so I won't rehash those reasons here.

The US used the same playbook for Syria as they had with Libya, our involvement was for "humanitarian reasons" and "human rights". As if we could claim today that Libya is anything close to humanitarian or human rights oriented.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerard-po ... 07436.html

In addition to the Rat line which was funneling support to the Syrian rebels covertly, we now also began overt support for the Syrian rebels-
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world ... wanted=all
with no mention at all to the growing Jihadist influence on the supposed "moderate" Syrian rebels.

Now, in regards to the so called "moderate" Syrian rebels, there is no such thing. They aren't moderate, despite the propaganda spewed by the State department. Remember, these are the guys we are hitching our wagons to to defeat Assad for the purpose "human rights and humanitarian" goals. Please don't forget this leap of logic as we continue.

The moderate rebels under the umbrella of the FSA (Free Syrian Army), who we say are the moderate "good guys", are anything but. The leader of the FSA, commander Jamal Maarouf, in April 2014 admitted that his FSA routinely conducted joint operations with Al Nusra.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 33424.html
Al Nusra is the official Al Qaeda branch in Syria.
To further illustrate this link between the supposed moderate FAS and the Jihadists who would later become ISIS, we need only go back to an interview with Colonel Abdel Basset Al-Tawil, commander of the FSA's Northern Front, in June of 2013-


For further verification that these guys are indeed who they say they are, you can verify their identities here, from the Institute for the Study of War-
http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/d ... embers.pdf

In the interview the commander states that it was the "superpowers" who set the timetable for the Syrian revolution. It's a decent watch and it's short. And he says he wants heavy weapons, he says that the FSA doesn't receive any heavy weapons. But we already know that tons of heavy weapons were moved from Libya to Syria via the Rat Line run by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar with US covert approval and consent. So who did all those heavy weapons go to if not the FSA? Take a guess, go on, I bet you can figure it out.

But I digress, the Colonel goes into detail (starting around 2:30 in the video) about the links between the FSA and Al Nusra (a.k.a. Al Qaeda in Syria, a.k.a ISIS) and that he says the FSA believes "we can conduct a dialog with them" regarding the future of Syria. This is important to keep in mind. The Colonel reveals that the FSA has ties "with everyone", which includes the Jihadists. He refers to Al Nusra as "brothers", keeping in mind that official US policy is that Al Nusra is a terrorist organization.
He also says that the aim of the Syrian revolution is to establish a State under Islamic Law.

Also, the Colonel threatens the West by saying that the rebels are to receive heavy weapons within one month. More on this shortly....

Moderate rebels you say? Naw, they aren't moderate. Just watch the interview and tell me if you'd want to join forces with these guys.
What problems could you foresee in the future if they prevail?

But this was never a secret, not really. It was just brushed under the rug here in the US. It was reported in 2012 that the FSA command was dominated by Islamic Jihadists by Rueters and the NY Times-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/ ... QX20121207

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world ... d=all&_r=0
and that the weapons being sent into Syria were ending up in the hands of those Islamic Jihadists. Then it was in June 2014 that Al Nusra and ISIS merged together on the border of Syria and Iraq-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -town.html

So for at least two years from the fall of Gaddafi the US knew that the weapons flowing into Syria ended up in the hands of the Jihadists, just like those of us who advised of the folly of involving ourselves in this mess said would happen. And the whole story only emerges years after the fact.

Now let's just go over what's been revealed so far in this post-
The US supports the FSA, the FSA works with Al Nusra, Al Nusra works with ISIS and the US knew since 2012 that the weapons being sent to Syria were ending up in the hands of Jihadists who's goal is to form an Islamic state run under Islamic Law. Start connecting the dots.

Now, before you start screaming- "Conspiracy nut!" at me, go ahead and listen to this interview, it's short-


and for those who don't want to watch, here is the relevant quote-

Syria, we backed I believe, in some cases some of the wrong people and not in the right part of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) that's a little confusing to people. So I've always maintained, and go back quite some time that we were backing the wrong types. I think it's going to turn out maybe this weekend in a new special that Brett Baer is going to have Friday that's gonna show some of those weapons from Benghazi ended up in the hands of ISIS. So we helped build ISIS.

Now if we remember back to 2013, during the Sarin gas attacks in Syria which we promptly blamed on Assad before even investigating, we know now that it was the Syrian rebels who launched the attack-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m- ... hose-sarin

Now that we know who were getting weapons, this makes a lot more sense now, doesn't it?

Let's get back to that threat in the interview. That interview above with the FSA colonel, he gives the west one month to deliver heavy weapons to the FSA or else the Syrian rebels would reveal to the world exactly what happened in regards to the Sarin gas attack in Aleppo. That interview was held on June 10, 2013. And by an amazing coincidence the received their first official shipment of heavy weapon nine days later-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... leppo.html

The US public rose up in massive opposition to Obama's attempts to get US military forces directly involved in the Syrian civil war because enough of us either understood exactly what these so called moderate rebels are or just opposed the intervention in more general terms.

So the US does what it always does when it can't garner popular support for something, they go clandestine and act anyway. In February, 2014, the US, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel helped the Syrian rebels plan and prepare for a massive attack "in the South" of Syria.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east ... m-1.576083

The US also had begun training Syrian rebels in Qatar, as reported by PBS-
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... -in-qatar/


We trained the rebels to-

They trained us to ambush regime or enemy vehicles and cut off the road,” said the fighter, who is identified only as "Hussein." "They also trained us on how to attack a vehicle, raid it, retrieve information or weapons and munitions, and how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush."

Keep in mind, that the above is in violation of Geneva convention of which the US is a signatory. Who else do we know today that executes captured soldiers? Yep, ISIS, which is SOP for them as per their US training.

It was in June 2014 when ISIS crossed into Iraq and captured Mosul, Baiji and almost reaching Baghdad itself. Which then sends us into a frenzy where we are- "OMG, we have to stop these guys!"

Massive amounts of US military equipment was captured by ISIS from the Iraq military who threw down their weapons and fled for their lives. ISIS captured humvees, helicopters, tanks, artillery, small arms and ammo.
http://www.news.com.au/world/iraqi-sunn ... 6952811362

Military doctrine states that equipment is supposed to be destroyed if they are going to be captured by enemy forces. That didn't happen. ISIS then convoyed all that equipment back to Syria and the US didn't lift a finger at all to stop it. WE could have wiped out those convoys easily at the time if we had wanted. We were carrying out drone strikes in Pakistan that very week!-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/13/world ... istan.html


But instead we let ISIS roll right out with all their captured booty. All the heavy weapons and equipment they could ever want.


Now, people like PS like to portray Obama as weak, indecisive and the pundits on the right run with that image, but it's all theater. Obama knows what he's doing. Lets go back to 2008, during his campaign. Obama heaps praise on one of his mentors, someone you probably have never heard of. Doctor Zbigniew Brzezinski. Take a moment to listen to Obama's heartfelt praise of this fellow-




So who is this guy? Well, lets go back, way back, to the year 1979. Brzezinski was directly involved in sending money and arms to Jihadists in Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight the soviets-



Lets not forget, Bin Laden was one of those freedom fighters we armed and helped. These are no secrets anymore, and we know full well the unintended consequences, don't we?-




Now some would argue that we armed those Jihadists in response to the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But this isn't exactly true. We began arming and training the Afghans six months before the soviets invaded with the express purpose of luring the soviets into Afghanistan-
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/141654 ... SLKBD5AYJX

as revealed in Robert Gates' memoir entitled "From the Shadows". Gates as you may remember was director of the CIA under Reagan and Bush Sr and Sec of Defense under Bush Jr and Obama.

This isn't just an example of the precedent, it's the US' just the beginning of the strategy still being used to this very day. Merely a continuation. ISIS are decedents of the very Islamic extremists we used those 35 years ago. We went on to create the perfect breeding ground for these extremists when we invaded Iraq in 2003. If we had not invaded Iraq, then Al Qaeda in Iraq would never have existed. If we had not provided weapons, training and support to the Syrian rebels, ISIS would not have been able to invade and capture large swaths of Iraq.

On every level the US created ISIS through our twisted foreign policy. You may ask, "why would be build up such an organization just to turn around and topple it?"

Well I don't know, why did the US put Saddam in power in Iraq in 1963?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/opini ... aking.html
Why did we back Saddam in 1980 when he attacked Iran and even used chemical weapons against them that apparently is some sort of red line for the US?
Why did we fund Jihadists in Afghanistan to fight the soviets?

Well, it's a variation the standard Problem, Reaction, Solution

1. Build up a tyrant or extremist group to be used to wage proxy war. Any crimes committed by these proxies during these skirmishes are ignored. (Problem)

2. When these bad guys outlive their usefulness then it's time to pull out all those crimes and atrocities from the shadows and publicize 24/7. This works best when no one knows about how these elements came into power in the first place. (Reaction)

3. When the public is begging the USG to do something about these bad guys, the solution is proposed. This usually involves military action, the loss of certain civil liberties or both. (Solution)

Thus, the government increases their power domestically, flexes their muscle internationally and beats down anyone that is in the way of the corporate or special interests upon which the USG is acting for.


Obama was thwarted from his initial plans in Syria. Now that ISIS is running amok he now has all the pretext he needs to do what he wanted to do after Gaddafi, that is strike Assad. ISIS has been very useful. Not only have they weakened Assad but now ISIS is what gives us the justification to extend our strikes from not only Iraq but to extend them into Syria.


From Libya we can see the future of Syria if Assad falls. Assad who we paint as the bad guy, is actually the last chance Syria has of any stability. He is the only thing that has a chance of having an actual moderate, non sectarian government or anything even remotely close to democracy in Syria. When the Islamists take over in Syria they will impose shari'ah law and do everything in their power to keep spreading their ideology. Killing anyone who gets in their way. And we created them.

If we truly wanted to defeat ISIS, then first and foremost the US and her allies have to cease any and all support to the Syrian rebels. Even if those rebels were moderate (which they aren't) they only keep weakening Assad and strengthen ISIS. Which is lunacy.

Second, Assad should be given help to defeat ISIS himself. This support need not come from the US or NATO. There are nations in the region who have vested interests in defeating ISIS. All we have to do is get out of the way.

Third, the USG should be sanctioned and condemned for it's continued regime change policies which have resulted in not more liberal democracy and the spreading of human rights, but have resulted in nothing but chaos and death while enabling Islamic extremists to grow in power and prestige.

I hope the reader has learned something from this rather long post. In conclusion I leave you, dear reader, with this blast from the past. In a way it is amusing, if not hauntingly dangerous. Well worth the short watch-










*Oh, wait, we already have. Never mind.

[BigBallinStalin]

3000+ word post...
It's interesting but takes too long to independently verify.

In general, it's very difficult to say that policy X was intended to cause outcome Y twenty years later (e.g. US training and funding the mujahideen). As that time range narrows, one's confidence in determining intention can increase; however, ....

... With the proto-ISIS in Libya, it's hard to say. The US/NATO bombs Libya government targets, this destabilizes the country, they know some people will steal weapons, but did they know that they'd use those weapons against the Syrian government and then the FSA, in order to found the Islamic State? I'm not so sure because that takes a bigger jump of confidence across a larger river of possibly related stories.

The simpler explanation is that the USG is much like the Soviet planners who tried to control an economy--they have no idea what they're doing because the rationality of their decision-making is hampered by the absence of market prices. It's just politics that dominates those decisions--the kind of politics that stumbles in the dark looking for solutions (e.g. its height of idiocy was 'war communism'). Instead, the US has a torch to illuminate some darkness (thanks to the market economy which provides all its toys and risk analysis, which the bureaucrats can distort with selective perception), but I don't see how this illuminates the alleged tendency toward pulling off great conspiracies.

Think of the ineptitude of the USG before it invaded Iraq: ill-prepared to even communicate with the local populace and hardly any of the top guys were familiar with Iraqi history. Consider the CIA's alleged powers: failed to predict the collapse of the USSR, failed to predict the Arab Spring, etc. Somehow they can pull off these big projects spanning years across several countries that result in this intended outcome? Maybe they felt that by funding a bunch of rebels some were bound to cause trouble which required US 'assistance'--or that possible outcome was perceived as negligible and instead they mainly intended to have the rebels beat down governments which the US didn't like.

[patches70]

3000+ word post...
It's interesting but takes too long to independently verify.

In general, it's very difficult to say that policy X was intended to cause outcome Y twenty years later (e.g. US training and funding the mujahideen). As that time range narrows, one's confidence in determining intention can increase; however, ....

... With the proto-ISIS in Libya, it's hard to say. The US/NATO bombs Libya government targets, this destabilizes the country, they know some people will steal weapons, but did they know that they'd use those weapons against the Syrian government and then the FSA, in order to found the Islamic State? I'm not so sure because that takes a bigger jump of confidence across a larger river of possibly related stories.

The simpler explanation is that the USG is much like the Soviet planners who tried to control an economy--they have no idea what they're doing because the rationality of their decision-making is hampered by the absence of market prices. It's just politics that dominates those decisions--the kind of politics that stumbles in the dark looking for solutions (e.g. its height of idiocy was 'war communism'). Instead, the US has a torch to illuminate some darkness (thanks to the market economy which provides all its toys and risk analysis, which the bureaucrats can distort with selective perception), but I don't see how this illuminates the alleged tendency toward pulling off great conspiracies.

Think of the ineptitude of the USG before it invaded Iraq: ill-prepared to even communicate with the local populace and hardly any of the top guys were familiar with Iraqi history. Consider the CIA's alleged powers: failed to predict the collapse of the USSR, failed to predict the Arab Spring, etc. Somehow they can pull off these big projects spanning years across several countries that result in this intended outcome? Maybe they felt that by funding a bunch of rebels some were bound to cause trouble which required US 'assistance'--or that possible outcome was perceived as negligible and instead they mainly intended to have the rebels beat down governments which the US didn't like.

You are right, the plan wasn't to create ISIS. The plan was to get rid of Assad to get a more favorable government in there that would green light the Qatar natgas pipeline. All the bad things that happen are unintended consequences, but acceptable consequences so long as the goal is achieved, in the case of Syria it's the last leg of the Qatar line.

And to note, in line with the USG being incompetent, they have thus far not been successful in that endeavor.

For my part, Qatar can suck an egg. Qatar's pipeline can suck an egg. EU energy freedom from Russia can suck an egg. To me none of that is worth pursuing the policies we pursue ATM. Because it is endangering ourselves later down the line for the benefit of the Qatari and the Europeans.

If they want to pursue such course, then so be it, the US should not be involved. That is the extent of the conspiracy. The US is the mercenary force for Qatar and EU interests.
Opposed to those interests are Russia and Assad.

And opposed to everyone is ISIS, who will burnout on their own just fine. That's the problem with such brutal tactics they use. After a while people get fed up and then it's ISIS who is on the receiving end of the beheadings.


The point is that it isn't nearly as cut and dry as Obama and the politicians always try to frame such issues, is it? Did you catch Obama's speech tonight? Well, neither did I, but I read the summary and it's laughably funny when one starts putting the facts to it.

ISIS are our former proxy fighters who even by finally going too far still serves it's purpose for the goal they were created for in the first place. To topple Assad. We don't give a crap about stability or any of that other nonsense. We want that pipeline to go through to stick it to the Russians.

That's about as deep as the USG goes, BBS. And they rely on the rest of us to be uninformed enough so that no one raises too much ruckus over it. I feel the need to at least put some info out there so that people can make up their own mind about the sanity and nature of our policies.

[BigBallinStalin]

Not sure if you saw this NY times article, but it's about foreign governments using US think tanks to shape US foreign policy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/us/po ... .html?_r=0

[Phatscotty]

The Sun never set

[Phatscotty]

Not sure if you saw this NY times article, but it's about foreign governments using US think tanks to shape US foreign policy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/us/po ... .html?_r=0

I suppose now it's 'acceptable' to talk about how Muslim outreach became a priority for NASA, if perhaps it is now 'acceptable' to wonder if there was an ulterior motive to specifically select a Muslim to run the CIA, perhaps even 'acceptable' to raise an eyebrow just 1 millimeter when Barack Obama gives credit to Muslims for 'building the very fabric of America' in a special statement released at the end of Ramadan but doesn't say a word about Christian children being beheaded or Christians being crucified by Muslims, perhaps it is now 'acceptable' to have what was up until recently an impure thought about why Barack Obama got elected running against gay marriage an saying it was an ecclesiastical matter and not a Federal issue and how his position against gay marriage was 'deeply' based on his Christian views only to flip flop a full 180 degrees

I guess the only possible answer to any mention whatsoever 'baseless' speech wondering if Obama is a Muslim or at least lied about his Christianity would be that his values and sympathies are for sale as well.

[shickingbrits]

Unintended consequences.

Incompetence.

Haha. You guys are a hoot. The CIA couldn't foresee the collapse of Russia, they were just illegally funnelling hundreds of billions of dollars to buy up its infrastructure by accident. They couldn't foresee the Arab Spring, they just created it.

ISIS has such nice uniforms, beautiful little atrocities, well-funded, well-armed. Couldn't be scripted any better. Love the flag guys. Going to sell a lot of war, "accidentally".

[Phatscotty]

Certainly does seem 'curious' that every step of the way in the setting up of the Caliphate, Obama is always looking the other way and when you try to see what is in his hand behind his back he wildly flails his other hand in the air 'look here! look here!'. The Arab Spring he cheered on was all about Liberation from a dictator, constant and repeated demands that Mubarak must go, while the Muslim Brotherhood takes power and Christians are immediately prosecuted and crucified all throughout Egypt and a very loud and outspoken Obama suddenly goes silent. Curious that immediately after Benghazi and the murder of an American Ambassador Obama got all loud and outspoken about a youtube video of some guy insulting the prophet of Islam being the reason for the attack, and it for sure was not Islam extremists, and why Obama ordered his administration to blame and repeat the youtube video as the reason in the U.N. and all over American news channels, while isis quietly receives their guns and butter based on alleged WMD attacks made by Assad, only to later quietly 'discover' it was actually isis that used the WMDs over and over again. Even more curious that Obama pulls out the troops, declares Iraq can take care of itself, repeats it over and over again that the term 'war on terrorism' will no longer be used or pursued, and immediately isis takes over a large swath of Iraq, robs hundreds of millions of dollars from banks, ethnically cleanses races and beheads and crucifies Christians, only to announces to the entire world that 'America does not have a strategy' in his tan suit, waits a couples weeks and lets the world know a strategy will be formed soon probably next week, and then he'll give his plan a few more days later, all the meanwhile isis consolidates it power and transforms the land so intensely and permanently it doesn't matter if we beat the shit out of them or not. This shepherd tells his sheep that glasses of sand will quench their thirst, and they drink it right up and ask for seconds, and they will vouch forever how Obama is the greatest president in history, he just got a lot of unfair criticism because he dropped his Christian name Barry Soetoro and went with the Muslim name Barack Hussein Obama when he 'converted to Christianity'

Everything the guy touches turns into shit! Oh, yeah, but anyone wondering about his Christianity is a bigoted racist hater.

[shickingbrits]

Whoever was voted in this millennium would have produced the same outcomes, though the crises would have been framed differently. Obama has been a good salesman, but McCain, Kerry, Romney were almost as good.

The US is a dictatorship which has convinced its population that it isn't. Watch the pattern repeat itself over and over and believe it isn't so. Sleep well at night, it's all a dream.

[patches70]

Not sure if you saw this NY times article, but it's about foreign governments using US think tanks to shape US foreign policy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/us/po ... .html?_r=0

And so it is how the US gets duped into doing the bidding of foreign powers.

The strategy Obama used in Libya and Syria was developed way back in the days of the Afghan/soviet war. Lo and behold it worked and it's formulaic. Prop up a proxy army and use that proxy army to wage war to accomplish a specific goal. In the case of Afghanistan it was to stick it to the Russians. In the case of Syria it's for Qatari benefit. Oh, and certain US corporations who have invested billion in the Qatari natgas production sector/infrastructure.


It is not nor ever have been about humanitarian reasons or saving the Syrian people from a tyrant.


Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are the real bad guys in this scenario. They all have the the financial interests at stake in this mess and they are the ones who have supported ISIS the most, even now that ISIS has gone "rogue". They want Assad gone. ISIS is just the muscle. They'll shrivel and die off as soon as the money and support dry up.


That's why all we have to do is make sure that everyone stops supporting ISIS if we really want to beat them. The US doesn't have to drop bombs or do anything else, just convince Turkey to seal that border, convince Qatar and the Sauds to stop arming and supporting ISIS and it's over for them.

But that would mean admitting our role in the formation of ISIS. And that's not politically acceptable, is it?

Webs, webs webs, all sticky and everywhere. Like walking through the woods and getting a face full of spider web.

Meh. f*ck it, people will be duped, other people will die and life goes on I suppose. And nothing will change until everything breaks. Then we'll have some real violence!

[BigBallinStalin]

Unintended consequences.

Incompetence.

Haha. You guys are a hoot.

[AndyDufresne]

--Andy

[patches70]

The USG will use a simple, easily understood Syrian Rebel application form to determine which rebels the CIA will arm-


Welcome to the United States’ Moderate Syrian Rebel Vetting Process. To see if you qualify for $500 million in American weapons, please choose an answer to the following questions:

As a Syrian rebel, I think the word or phrase that best describes me is:

A) Moderate
B) Very moderate
C) Crazy moderate
D) Other

I became a Syrian rebel because I believe in:

A) Truth
B) Justice
C) The American Way
D) Creating an Islamic caliphate

If I were given a highly lethal automatic weapon by the United States, I would:

A) Only kill exactly the people that the United States wanted me to kill
B) Try to kill the right people, with the caveat that I have never used an automatic weapon before
C) Kill people only after submitting them to a rigorous vetting process
D) Immediately let the weapon fall into the wrong hands

I have previously received weapons from:

A) Al Qaeda
B) The Taliban
C) North Korea
D) I did not receive weapons from any of them because after they vetted me I was deemed way too moderate

I consider ISIS:

A) An existential threat to Iraq
B) An existential threat to Syria
C) An existential threat to Iraq and Syria
D) The people who will pick up my American weapon after I drop it and run away

Complete the following sentence. “American weapons are…”

A) Always a good thing to randomly add to any international hot spot
B) Exactly what this raging civil war has been missing for the past three years
C) Best when used moderately
D) Super easy to resell online

Thank you for completing the Moderate Syrian Rebel Application Form. We will process your application in the next one to two business days. Please indicate a current mailing address where you would like your weapons to be sent. If there is no one to sign for them we will leave them outside the front door.

[patches70]

Turkey, member of NATO and our ally has told Obama to go f*ck himself when it comes to fighting ISIS.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/09 ... ight-isis/

Turkey refuses to let the US use her bases to launch attacks against ISIS. Why?

We don't need Turkey, not really. It would be easier if they'd let us use their bases but we can do without in a pinch. Why doesn't Turkey feel the same need to destroy ISIS as the US appears to?


Conflicting interests. Turkey and the US want the same thing, Assad gone. Both were willing to use ISIS to achieve that goal. However, political pressures on the US forces us to now oppose ISIS where Turkey doesn't have to worry about such pressures. To compromise the US will make sure that our "eradication" of ISIS takes as long as possible. We've invested a lot of time and resources building them up, it'd be a shame to wipe them out before they complete the job they were tasked to.

[Dukasaur]

The strategy Obama used in Libya and Syria was developed way back in the days of the Afghan/soviet war. Lo and behold it worked and it's formulaic. Prop up a proxy army and use that proxy army to wage war to accomplish a specific goal. In the case of Afghanistan it was to stick it to the Russians. In the case of Syria it's for Qatari benefit. Oh, and certain US corporations who have invested billion in the Qatari natgas production sector/infrastructure.


It is not nor ever have been about humanitarian reasons or saving the Syrian people from a tyrant.


Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are the real bad guys in this scenario. They all have the the financial interests at stake in this mess and they are the ones who have supported ISIS the most, even now that ISIS has gone "rogue". They want Assad gone. ISIS is just the muscle. They'll shrivel and die off as soon as the money and support dry up.

In general I think your analysis is good, but this is where I have a problem.

It seems to me that if building the pipeline was the only consideration, then bribing Assad would be a lot cheaper than building a revolution against him which will later have to be extinguished. And yeah, I realize that he has a strong historic alliance with the Lubyanka, but every man has his price...

I have no doubt that the pipeline deal plays a part in these machinations, but to say that it's the sole motive for all that's happened doesn't seem to stand up to a cost-benefit analysis.

[patches70]

In general I think your analysis is good, but this is where I have a problem.

It seems to me that if building the pipeline was the only consideration, then bribing Assad would be a lot cheaper than building a revolution against him which will later have to be extinguished. And yeah, I realize that he has a strong historic alliance with the Lubyanka, but every man has his price...

I have no doubt that the pipeline deal plays a part in these machinations, but to say that it's the sole motive for all that's happened doesn't seem to stand up to a cost-benefit analysis.

I don't know if the pipeline is the only consideration. It's the only one I'm very familiar with. And Assad was bribed. Assad had originally agreed to let the pipeline through Syria, tranzit fees are a good thing. Except Russia realized what was happening and had a nice talk with Assad and the next thing that happens is Assad denies permission for the pipeline. Soon after the "revolution" began.

I don't remember what the Russians promised Assad.


Some other considerations with why Assad has to go that I know of is Israel. Israel really hates Assad and they are involved with all this as well. I just don't know and don't have decent documentation to show that involvement except what I mentioned in the long post about ISIS' origins. For obvious reasons Israel's involvement is kept on the down low if you catch my drift.

And then there are the Sunni/Shia/Salafist considerations. Lots of different factions hate each other and Assad is part of one of those factions. Each has their own goals and aspirations.

But what the US primarily cares about is the pipeline. What Qatar cares about primarily is the pipeline. What Turkey cares about primarily is the pipeline (tranzit fees). The actual people fighting all have their own reasons obviously, and those reasons just happen to be in line with our own interests, the pipeline.

I'm sure there are other considerations, there always are. But I don't know what I don't know. But yeah, they tried the bribing line first, and when that fell through it's time for plan "B" and from there we arrive where we are now. A comedy of errors that is anything but funny.

It's a bigger game, it's merely a first front of the quasi energy war which eventually will bloom into a real war one day as energy supplies begin dwindling and resources become more scarce.

[shickingbrits]

The reason for war is war.

You shouldn't like that because it means a lot of crap happens for no particular reason and you are funding it. Some people get a piece of the pie, you make the pie. But you get to watch it live on CNN.
Congrats.

[BigBallinStalin]

The strategy Obama used in Libya and Syria was developed way back in the days of the Afghan/soviet war. Lo and behold it worked and it's formulaic. Prop up a proxy army and use that proxy army to wage war to accomplish a specific goal. In the case of Afghanistan it was to stick it to the Russians. In the case of Syria it's for Qatari benefit. Oh, and certain US corporations who have invested billion in the Qatari natgas production sector/infrastructure.


It is not nor ever have been about humanitarian reasons or saving the Syrian people from a tyrant.


Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are the real bad guys in this scenario. They all have the the financial interests at stake in this mess and they are the ones who have supported ISIS the most, even now that ISIS has gone "rogue". They want Assad gone. ISIS is just the muscle. They'll shrivel and die off as soon as the money and support dry up.

In general I think your analysis is good, but this is where I have a problem.

It seems to me that if building the pipeline was the only consideration, then bribing Assad would be a lot cheaper than building a revolution against him which will later have to be extinguished. And yeah, I realize that he has a strong historic alliance with the Lubyanka, but every man has his price...

I have no doubt that the pipeline deal plays a part in these machinations, but to say that it's the sole motive for all that's happened doesn't seem to stand up to a cost-benefit analysis.

Credible commitment problem. Can you really trust Assad to carry out his promise, and if he fails to carry out his promise, what do you do? Bomb him because he didn't build a pipeline? (Doesn't sell well to politicians).

C-B analysis. You're assuming the relevant bureaucrats conduct such a thing. When it comes to geopolitics, they hardly do it sufficiently. Besides, they'll print out what they've already concluded anyway.


Honestly, I don't buy the pipeline hypothesis. I don't know enough about it to be as confident as patches' is.

[BigBallinStalin]

The reason for war is war.

lol,

The reason for shickbrick posts is shickbrick posts.