[Orion]

(02-04-2015 01:51 PM)Saga Wrote:  

The chaos has also negatively impacted the Kurdistan Regional Government, which is probably the best hope for secularism in the region south of Turkey.

The best, most stable, and successful in quelling Islamists hope for secularism south of Turkey were Baathist governments. All were overthrown with western help - that in Iraq, the other in Egypt, and now Assad is the only remaining Baathist in middle east.

[Farmageddon]

Quote:

We might have had a role in indirectly creating ISIS, but there is no proof that we directly did.

This is my point. We might have created a set of circumstances out of which ISIS arose, but we had no hand in the actual creation of the organization. I'm betting QC also thinks we created Al Qaeda, as well. The only problem is that Al-Zawahiri wrote in his book, "Knights Under The Banner of the Prophet" that he and Bin Laden received precisely zero funding from the US.

Quote:

Also, I don't think it's right to be mocking Quintus with pics of Aliens dude or alleging he's a conspiracy theorist. He's a good guy with a great mind. No need to get personal. Either what he wrote is backed up by the facts or it's not. Attack the argument, not the man.

Fair enough, but tracing every argument back to the Jewz somehow is borderline, if not straight up conspiracy theory and deserves to be ruthlessly ridiculed. In the interest of the board I'll refrain from making fun his delusion.

I'm walking out to go eat some dinner. I'll check out your links when I get back.

[Orion]

No, Jewish state does not use it's powerful allies, it's money, it's lobbying and it's connections and external support to reshape their region. They use it for charity only.

[Baldwin81]

(02-04-2015 01:28 PM)Grange Wrote:  

You can find plenty of libertarians saying the US shouldn't get involved in the Middle East again not because of right and wrong but because it's foolish. It's a quagmire.

Well it's easy to say that now! I know there are some libertarians who were against it from the get-go, but Ron Paul didn't harvest his crop of supporters until we went into Iraq. Hindsight 20/20 Trotskyists, don't you see? Telling us how it should be while others actually take (ill-advised or otherwise) and were always going take to action.

(02-04-2015 01:28 PM)Grange Wrote:  

The criticism that libertarians aren't realistic is common but I can hardly swallow it. It's everybody else that's talking about taking the gloves off to "win" that's out of touch with reality.

The people who want to take the proverbial gloves off are the other side of the same coin. They're your pre-approved, dog-and-pony show opposition. Unfortunately they appear heavily favored. In even more unfortunate news, whether it's you, me, or someone who wants to "win" and hunt ISIS (or vice versa) for sport... all of us have as much control over the outcome here as we did in the Super Bowl.

(02-04-2015 01:28 PM)Grange Wrote:  

What can the US possibly do that will make anyone other than the military industrial complex better off?

Well, I hope they make it more affordable for CISPolyGenderTransFats to go to Junior College. As for what they can do to make the military industrial complex better off?

We will find out, sir.

[Grange]

(02-04-2015 06:33 PM)Baldwin81 Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 01:28 PM)Grange Wrote:  

You can find plenty of libertarians saying the US shouldn't get involved in the Middle East again not because of right and wrong but because it's foolish. It's a quagmire.

Well it's easy to say that now! I know there are some libertarians who were against it from the get-go, but Ron Paul didn't harvest his crop of supporters until we went into Iraq. Hindsight 20/20 Trotskyists, don't you see? Telling us how it should be while others actually take (ill-advised or otherwise) and were always going take to action.

At the risk of sounding smug, I was one of those libertarians. I knew or read many others. That's one of the reasons I know there couldn't have been too few of us. I concede that most of the opposition to the war dried up when it became Obama's war-implying that most people who opposed the Iraq War were really just opposed to Bush-but not all of us. I agree about the Ron Paul supporters. New England probably just picked up a million new fans.

Also Stalin was in charge of a state; he could and should have done things differently, but he still had to do some things. Going to war or not is a different kind of consideration. You don't have to do it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your Trotsky analogy.

Quote:

(02-04-2015 01:28 PM)Grange Wrote:  

The criticism that libertarians aren't realistic is common but I can hardly swallow it. It's everybody else that's talking about taking the gloves off to "win" that's out of touch with reality.

The people who want to take the proverbial gloves off are the other side of the same coin. They're your pre-approved, dog-and-pony show opposition. Unfortunately they appear heavily favored. In even more unfortunate news, whether it's you, me, or someone who wants to "win" and hunt ISIS (or vice versa) for sport... all of us have as much control over the outcome here as we did in the Super Bowl.

By my count 40% of the posters in this thread fit that description. I am not talking about Dick Cheney here.

[Quintus Curtius]

Israeli connections with Islamist extremist groups in Syria, and how it uses these groups to further its own expansionist and supremacist agenda:

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/how...-740568063

http://www.businessinsider.com/its-not-t...ia-2014-10

http://www.blacklistednews.com/RT_Report...8/Y/M.html


They've been playing this game for many years. See also Patrick Seale's biography of the elder Asad ("Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East"), where he discusses how Syria's enemies in the 1980s funded the Muslim Brotherhood, which waged a low-intensity terrorist struggle in the country until it was crushed in 1982.


.

[Quintus Curtius]

(02-04-2015 06:03 PM)Orion Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 01:51 PM)Saga Wrote:  

The chaos has also negatively impacted the Kurdistan Regional Government, which is probably the best hope for secularism in the region south of Turkey.

The best, most stable, and successful in quelling Islamists hope for secularism south of Turkey were Baathist governments. All were overthrown with western help - that in Iraq, the other in Egypt, and now Assad is the only remaining Baathist in middle east.

This is a very good point, Orion.

The West and Israel have always been more afraid of Arab secular nationalist movements like Nasserism and Ba'athism, than Sunni Islamic fundamentalism.

The Sunni Islamists are mostly ignorant, uneducated savages. But the secular nationalist governments pose a real threat: they can unlock the human potential of their countries, and this is something the West can't permit.

Secular nationalist governments wanted modern education, modern economies, and modern infrastructure. This threatens Israeli control over the region.

Remember, one of the cornerstones of US policy in the region has been to maintain the unquestioned supremacy of Israel. Basically, the US is so committed to this policy that it can't act independently, even if it wanted to. So many secret treaties and agreements have been made (going back to the 1970s) that it's just nearly impossible.

This is why Jamal Abd-al Nasser was destroyed in the 1960s; this is why they tried to overthrow Asad the elder in the 1980s; this is one of the major reasons why Saddam had to be destroyed in the 1990s (he stopped following orders); and this is why they're trying to destroy Asad the younger, now.


.

[infowarrior1]

Anyway groups like ISIS was able to exist in the 1st place due to the US policy of:

Quote:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/0...ntPage=all


And many other policies like:
Sanctions, page 39 (page 52 of PDF):

Quote:

"For those who favor regime change or a military attack on Iran (either by the United States or Israel), there is a strong argument to be made for trying this option first. inciting regime change in Iran would be greatly assisted by convincing the Iranian people that their government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do what is best for the people and instead clings to a policy that could only bring ruin on the country. The ideal scenario in this case would be that the United States and the international community present a package of positive inducements so enticing that the Iranian citizenry would support the deal, only to have the regime reject it.

In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

And other methods they are mulling over


http://www.scribd.com/doc/108902116/Broo...sia-Report

I couldn't be bothered to post more quotes but many US policies make sense in light of this.

[MidJack]

(02-04-2015 05:21 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 05:02 PM)MidJack Wrote:  

^^^ The idea that the entire GCC is beholden to Washington DC is a hilarious punctuation mark on that entire conspiracy theory.

The entire GCC is, in fact, beholden to the US. The US has underwritten their security at their request. Do you dispute this?

The US and Britain have bases in the area and patrol the Persian Gulf constantly.

They're terrified of the Iranians. They are Sunni absolute monarchs sitting atop large Shi'ite minorities, whom they have been oppressing for many decades.

So, yes, absolutely, they follow orders from Washington and from Saudi Arabia.

All of the Gulf states are sitting on power kegs of restive Shi'ite populations.

.

Are you shifting the goal posts or revising your position? Saudia Arabia is a GCC member and the most powerful OPEC player by production capacity, which brings us to the primary point:

The power relationship between the US and these countries pivots on hydrocarbons. Securing regional stability is essential but secondary.

If Saudi Arabia really took orders from the west, they wouldn't be collapsing our domestic oil industry.

[WestIndianArchie]

(02-04-2015 01:51 PM)Saga Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 01:32 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

And what exactly is our national interest?

I don't see the argument for intervention.
It's not oil.
It's not humanitarian.

Instability in Iraq threatens the security of Jordan and Turkey, increases extremist power in Syria and Lebanon, and could potentially cause problems in Iran. The chaos has also negatively impacted the Kurdistan Regional Government, which is probably the best hope for secularism in the region south of Turkey.

All those have geopolitical and economic consequences.

Moreover, continued violence there is tied to radicalism within Europe, the results of which can be seen in the Paris massacre last month.

I'm not unsympathetic to isolationist arguments, but there are plenty of factors that involve US interests there.

Perhaps I need to be more plain in my ignorance,

but how are Jordan and Turkey important to people in Savannah GA and Boston MA Cleveland OH, and Portland OR?

Are we afraid that these guys that want to turn society back to the 14th century are somehow gonna create Inter-Continental Ballistic Missles tipped with Chemical/Biological/Nuclear weapons to get back at the Evil West for centuries of meddling in their affairs?

Going to Petra in Jordan is on my bucket list, but if that's no longer an option, I'm sure me and the rest of us "isolationists" are cool with that.

Is it because we suddenly care about innocent people falling under the Caliphate...
Cause we ain't sending troops into Nigeria to stop Boko Haram. And there's definitely oil in Nigeria as well.

We could just let them folks shoot it out, aka self-determination - as bloody as it is. Whatever results will eventually be more stable. And oddly enough ISIS seems to be trying to run a state, not just terrorize one.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/18/world/meas...hierarchy/

"The research shows how ISIS has gone from being a purely military force to building a system that can provide basic services, such as making sure that gas and food are available, to its new citizens."

I mean we let Saudi's behead mf'ers on the regular. Not like there isn't a precedent.

As far as the Israeli factor goes, they seem to be more the capable of taking care of themselves. Razing entire settlements because a Palestinian didn't pay a parking ticket seems to be how they operate.

What am I not seeing?

Is the "Islamic Threat" like the spread of Fascism? Communism? Justin Bieber?

Respectfully, I'm trying to see the point, unless of course it's to maintain some sort of unspoken American Empire.

WIA

[JacksonRev]

This thread is awesome. Time to stir the pot.

(02-04-2015 10:22 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 10:14 AM)Saga Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 10:05 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

You should be ashamed for being weak and emotional.

So you're saying that any argument that evokes a sense of ethos is "weak and emotional"?

I'm saying that any argument that justifies wars of choice on the basis of ethos/morality/emotion is dangerous and inappropriate to the national interest.
War/military force should be used only to defend and advance vital national interests.
Realpolitik is how you play to win. Game of Thrones.
This go solve the world's problems bullshit will not work, and will cause the 21st century to be the time when America's supremacy fades. China will be pleased though.

National morality is the result of massive technological advantage combined with a situation where your enemies are more useful alive then dead. Or, as Al Capone so eloquently put it, "You can be as nice as you want if you're the man with the gun.

(02-04-2015 10:41 AM)NovaVirtu Wrote:  

This is an unpopular idea but it needs to be said: This all happened because the US/coalition pulled out of Iraq.

Seriously, where do people get this ridiculous idea that you can invade a country, smash everything, prop up a "friendly" government and just leave, and everything will be all sunshine and kittens afterward?

There are still US forces in Germany, Japan, and Korea. Thousands of them, in PERMANENT bases.

This is was done because they know only a LONG TERM standing presence there would ensure stability and prevent hostile factions from taking power there. And you know what? It works.

We left because the Iraqi government was stupid and self serving. Nobody expected them not to sign a SOFA, Status of Forces Agreement. The main hold up was we wanted immunity from Iraqi prosecution for our soldiers, since Iraq can be a rather corrupt place and we'd rather our soldiers not be thrown into prison or executed for trivial bullshit and petty scores. But Iraq wouldn't do it, which took a lot of people by surprise, so we opened up a closed air base specifically to fly troops off in commercial airlines, since we filled up our normal pit stop. I don't even want to know what those flight crews made.

My best guess is that a lot of people smarter than me came to the conclusion that one of three things would happen. One, Iraq would become a self sufficient country, which would be great, and we could move on. Two, an insurgency would overthrow the government, in which case we'd just roll back in, and sign a more definitive treaty this time around. Or three, an insurgency would happen, the Iraqi government would hold on long enough to say, "Hey America...remember that immunity clause we were so hung up about? Can we just forget about that, and you guys come back? Please? Like now?"

(02-04-2015 01:09 PM)Baldwin81 Wrote:  

No right, no wrong. No good, no bad. Only consequences...

It's amazing how many people really don't get this about war. We're making this up as we go along, it's all about what works, which we don't know until well after the fact.

(02-04-2015 02:11 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

Well, we know who some of our friends are. We could start by fucking giving the Kurds the weapons they deserve and have fought and died for instead of completely ignoring them, as we have done numerous times in the past. It's funny because ISIS now uses the equipment WE gave Iraq against the Kurds (who are our true allies) against them while they still use PRE-SADDAM era weapons. Shame on us.

You'll have major problems with the Turks if you do that. Like most situations in the Levant / Middle East, it comes down to Great Britain and France drawing the shittiest country boundaries possible to split dominant ethnic groups. This way they could retain power and influence with easily manipulated minority groups. It's similar to how a large English speaking German-Irish country is influenced.

(02-04-2015 05:38 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

About ISIS being the creation of the US and its allies:


http://forums.canadiancontent.net/intern...eated.html (This link has an interview with Noam Chomsky, where he talks about these issues).

He's a political line towing professor with no direct experience in any type of military role.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-te...ay-n208006
(Showing ISIS funneled money via Gulf proxies)

That's a bait and switch. ISIS is self funding through oil profits, which they allude to in the article with a giant BUT in the middle. Which is also why ISIS is particularly dangerous.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1796991/isis-co...rough-u-s/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/29/...d-from-us/

Did you even read these? The largest banking system in the world, with trillions of dollars flowing through it, happened to have $600 per head for a couple ragtag recruits get transferred through it at some point into another country. This is like saying the FAA is smuggling weapons because one of their employees gamed the system.

[iknowexactly]

(02-04-2015 01:37 PM)OkStudies Wrote:  

Savages. Isis should be dealt swiftly, mercilessly and without a hint of hesitation.

I as a freedom loving liberal am in agreement with this.

I think the hard part is figuring out with any clarity who the hell they are when they are not actually shooting at someone.

The scumbags that murdered that pilot go back to some city and take off their masks and how do you know them when they look like everyone else?

Unless you invade the city with ground forces and go person to person killing everyone who tries to shoot you...

[scorpion]

It boggles my mind that we have people in here essentially arguing that ISIS "just happened" without any assistance from outside governments. The entire history of the Middle East for the last century has been nothing but meddling by the Western powers. The idea that a force as disruptive, organized and well-financed as ISIS just came out of nowhere on its own stretches the bounds of credulity.

ISIS is a rabid dog. It's been fed and kept on a long leash by parties who believe they stand to benefit from having a rabid dog running around terrorizing their rivals. Obviously, chief amongst these parties is Israel. The Israelis have been pursuing a strategy of destabilizing the Middle East for decades now, under the theory that Israel's security can be more easily guaranteed if the neighboring Arab states are splintered and in a constant state of internecine strife rather than united against the Jewish state. And no, this is not tinfoil conspiracy talk. This is a plan that was outlined in a 1982 policy paper in an Israeli military journal. An excerpt:

Quote:

Egypt is divided and torn apart into many foci of authority. If Egypt falls apart, countries like Libya, Sudan or even the more distant states will not continue to exist in their present form and will join the downfall and dissolution of Egypt. The vision of a Christian Coptic State in Upper Egypt alongside a number of weak states with very localized power and without a centralized government as to date, is the key to a historical development which was only set back by the peace agreement but which seems inevitable in the long run.13

The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precendent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi'ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.14

Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.

Pretty amazing, right? Remember, this is from 1982. Either this guy is a prophet or the Israelis have been following his advice like a playbook.

It's also rather strange how the most violent and fanatical group of Muslim extremists we've ever seen seem to have very little interest in going after Israel. Strong anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric is practically a cliche from Muslim terrorist types, but ISIS barely even pays Israel lip service as an enemy. I mean, ISIS is literally more interested in antagonizing the fucking Japanese than the Israelis. That's completely bizarre, and totally inexplicable unless ISIS is refusing to bite the hand that feeds.

I can only guess as to the deeper layers of the machinations and power politics that are going on in the Middle East right now, but it's very obvious that ISIS is being supported by one or more states. It's also obvious that Israel is one of those states, and that means the U.S. and likely the Saudis are involved as well. The only question is, of course, how this mess plays out. My guess is that ISIS and the U.S./Israeli faction both believe they are using each other. ISIS is willing to play along with the U.S./Israeli plan because it gives them a chance to establish their caliphate. Meanwhile, they are no doubt preparing for the perfect opportunity to cut the leash when the time is right. The U.S./Israelis, on the other hand, are confident they can keep ISIS contained, and will be able to destroy them once they are no longer useful. It remains to be seen which side is correct.

There is also another, more disturbing possibility. That being that ISIS is a match that was lit and deliberately thrown into the Middle East tinderbox intentionally to start a big war in the Middle East, a war that would end up drawing in more than just the regional players. A war that could provide cover for a global economy that could no longer be prevented from collapsing with central bank shenanigans. A war like the type that followed the last big global economic meltdown. A world war. The third world war.

Farfetched? I wish it were less so. With tensions between the U.S. and Russia the highest they've been in a generation, the danger is real. This is especially the case given the situation of Syria following the Ukrainian coup. It's clear that the U.S. and Israel want to topple Assad. If Putin decides that Syria is a hill worth dying on, or at least fighting on, things could escalate and spiral out of control very quickly from there.

[floor7]

(02-03-2015 06:08 PM)Travesty444 Wrote:  

I would pay more taxes out of my paycheck for drones to just fly around and kill them more often then hopefully they already are.

Haha - if they ever instituted a line-item 'war' tax to fund aumf's, there would be uproar by 90% of the population.

[zombiejimmorrison]

(02-03-2015 06:35 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

No, it doesn't count as mass murder because initially two armed groups took each other on. The US military vs. the Iraqi Army and then various rebel groups and terrorists like AQI. It's called war. Unfortunately innocent people are caught in the crossfire in every war, no matter how "just" or unjust you think the war is.

However, we don't go out of our way to deliberately attack them.

America is definitely not the good guy in this War, they have been selling weapons and destabilizing that part of the area for years. All for profit, and they want to keep that up. They should be criticized and often because they make these problems worse if not start them.

Not intentionally killing people doesn't make you morally superior in anyway, you're still killing innocent people, and this is fuel for the extremists. We have a warrior class in most governments who are blood thirsty and will use any means necessary to act out.

[Quintus Curtius]

As usual, Scorpion knows his stuff and is right on the money. Hats off to you, Scorp. Thank you for breathing some rationality and knowledge here.

He's mastered the history and geopolitics of the region; but it's clear that some other posters here have not.

The key thing to grasp here is that the issue is one of control: that is, who rules. The energy resources of the region are a priority for the US and Europe, and it is critical for them to be sure that nothings stands in the way of their total control.

Israel is a regional tool of the US; but it is also more than that. It is a deeply manipulative, radical, aggressive, and expansionist entity that harbors not-so-secret dreams of colonizing the region and exploiting it economically. But this is not widely known in the US, for reasons that I will let the reader decide for himself. It is also expert in controlling public opinion here in the US through a variety of ways, although there are some modest signs that this is beginning to erode.

The only actors in the region that are standing in the way of US hegemony are Syria, Iran, and to a lesser extent, the Shia groups in Lebanon (Hizballah) and Iraq (Jaish al-Mahdi).

The priority for the neo-con gang in the past 30 years has been to accomplish regime change in Iran and Syria. If they can pull this off, they hope to install compliant governments that will open their borders up to Israeli economic exploitation. Israel wants the cheap labor and market for its products, and has made that clear by refusing to sign a peace deal with Syria unless Syria allows Israeli companies to open up branches in Syria.

The US saw a golden opportunity to overthrow Asad in 2011 when the demonstrations started. Erdogan was used as the conduit for massive amounts of arms, money, and fighters (most of whom are not even Syrian). Radicals flooded into Syria from Chechnya, Europe, Pakistan, Libya, and many other places. By funding these radical Islamist groups like ISIS and Jahhat al-Nusra, they hope to get others to do the fighting and dying. It's a way of weakening their enemies.

The Saudis and the Gulf States write the checks. The Israelis fly a lot of quiet air support missions for these groups, when it looks like the Syrian Army is about to eliminate the rebels. They want to keep the fighting going so that they can bleed Hezballah and the Syrian Army. It's all about power politics.

These Islamist scum have been terrorizing the countryside for a few years now. Of course, the US media doesn't report this. These ISIS guys are little more than brigands. Most of them are just deadbeats from around the world who are recruited by their radical clerics. Once they get to the region they just melt in with the others. If the US wanted to get rid of these people, it could be done. But they have no interest in doing so. Their strategy is to let the fighting continue, so that they can exhaust Syria, Hizballah, and Iran.

They will fail.

But it looks like the Iranians and Syrians have been more resilient than they expected. Erdogan himself has openly expressed his frustration at not having been able to help topple Asad, despite all his support and encouragement of these Islamist radicals.

Netanyahu is going to come to the US soon enough, and address Congress, with his usual mix of lies and propaganda. The other item on his action list is to try to foment a war with Iran, based on the nuclear pretext. It's all lies, of course, but when has that ever stopped the US media from reporting it?

.

[speakeasy]

Damn, I really learned a lot from this thread. I had no idea that Israel was quietly supporting ISIS. But that makes sense since Hezbollah and Asad are bigger enemies. I'm sure these ISIS types if they had their way would drive Israelis into the sea.

That part of the world is just intractably complex. I'm starting to think that the only way to ever have peace there is to drop a few 100-megaton nukes and start over from scratch.

[samsamsam]

After Jordanian Pilot Burned Alive, Jordan Launches Airstrikes Against ISIS, Kills 55 In Iraq Including Top Commander 'Prince Of Nineveh'

Quote:

A day after the Islamic State released a video showing a Jordanian pilot being burned alive, Jordan launched airstrikes against the group in Iraq that killed 55 people, including a top commander known as the "Prince of Nineveh," Iraqi media reported Wednesday. The airstrikes came just hours after Jordan's King Abdullah II pledged a "severe" response.

"The blood of martyr Maaz al-Kassasbeh [also spelled Muath al-Kaseasbeh] will not be in vain, and the response of Jordan and its army after what happened to our dear son will be severe," the king said in a statement released by the royal court. Jordan also executed two jihadist prisoners by hanging Wednesday morning, government spokesman Mohammed al-Momani said.

Jordan had said it would beef up its role in the U.S.-led coalition against the militant group also known as ISIS. White House spokesman Alistair Baskey said, "The president and King Abdullah reaffirmed that the vile murder of this brave Jordanian will only serve to steel the international community's resolve to destroy IS."

The video released by ISIS showed al-Kaseasbeh with his clothes drenched in fuel as flames engulfed him. It concluded with pictures of what the Islamic State claimed were other Jordanian pilots and an offer of a reward for their deaths. Al-Kaseasbeh was reportedly shot down in his F-16 fighter bomber on Dec. 24 during an air operation near the militants’ stronghold of Raqqa in eastern Syria, according to the New York Times.

U.S. National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said administration officials were examining the video. "We are aware of the video purporting to show that [al-Kaseasbeh] has been murdered by the terrorist group ISIL," read Meehan's statement. "The intelligence community is working to confirm its authenticity. The United States strongly condemns ISIL’s actions and we call for the immediate release of all those held captive by ISIL. We stand in solidarity with the government of Jordan and the Jordanian people."

President Barack Obama met Tuesday with Abdullah in the Oval Office, where he offered his condolences. "I think it will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of the global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated,” he said.

The Islamic State had asked Jordanian officials to trade al-Kaseasbeh for Sajida al-Rishawi, an Iraqi woman held in prison in Jordan after a 2005 suicide bomb attack that killed 60 people in Amman. Rishawi was one of those executed Wednesday.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the brutality of IS was "beyond comprehension," according to AFP. "It has nothing to do with our religion."

http://www.ibtimes.com/after-jordanian-p...55-1805814

[Saga]

(02-04-2015 06:03 PM)Orion Wrote:  

The best, most stable, and successful in quelling Islamists hope for secularism south of Turkey were Baathist governments. All were overthrown with western help - that in Iraq, the other in Egypt, and now Assad is the only remaining Baathist in middle east.

That's true to a point, but the major mistakes of Baathists like Nasser (who was completely outfoxed and beaten in 1956, tried to make it look like a victory, then was promptly humiliated in 1967 because he failed to learn from those lessons) and the vindictive cruelty of leaders like Saddam (his treatment of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs was deplorable by any standard) have certainly done the ideology no favors. There were many years in which Baathist secularism looked ascendant in the middle east, but that's long gone now.

The history of US involvement in the middle east has been an ignoble sequence of blunders, errors and outright malice, I agree. But what's done is done, none of us can change the past, and despite it all there is an opportunity for things to improve. Iraqi Shia cooperation with Iran might prove a positive long-term development, while Turkey's willingness to work with the Kurdish regional government is both welcome and unprecedented.

However, the sad fact is that a decent approach to the situation is impossible because the US government has already made plain its intentions. They've chosen hegemony over harmony, and to that end they've pursued instability and chaos in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Libya (to name a few). By toppling Gaddafi and providing zero groundwork for a suitable successor government, by knowingly funding lunatics in Syria, by doing everything possible to leave Iraq in ruins...the only logical explanation for this continued policy of destabilization is that the US government wants these countries to fail. It's the oldest trick in the book, betting on your opponent and having your own man throw the match.

If we had wiser rulers who followed the legacy of Westphalia or Metternich in seeking a just balance of power, the US could go some distance to fixing this mess. As it is, though, I don't trust our present leadership to do anything except the exact opposite.

[JustlookingForAGoodTime]

(02-05-2015 02:28 AM)samsamsam Wrote:  

After Jordanian Pilot Burned Alive, Jordan Launches Airstrikes Against ISIS, Kills 55 In Iraq Including Top Commander 'Prince Of Nineveh'

Quote:

A day after the Islamic State released a video showing a Jordanian pilot being burned alive, Jordan launched airstrikes against the group in Iraq that killed 55 people, including a top commander known as the "Prince of Nineveh," Iraqi media reported Wednesday. The airstrikes came just hours after Jordan's King Abdullah II pledged a "severe" response.

"The blood of martyr Maaz al-Kassasbeh [also spelled Muath al-Kaseasbeh] will not be in vain, and the response of Jordan and its army after what happened to our dear son will be severe," the king said in a statement released by the royal court. Jordan also executed two jihadist prisoners by hanging Wednesday morning, government spokesman Mohammed al-Momani said.

Jordan had said it would beef up its role in the U.S.-led coalition against the militant group also known as ISIS. White House spokesman Alistair Baskey said, "The president and King Abdullah reaffirmed that the vile murder of this brave Jordanian will only serve to steel the international community's resolve to destroy IS."

The video released by ISIS showed al-Kaseasbeh with his clothes drenched in fuel as flames engulfed him. It concluded with pictures of what the Islamic State claimed were other Jordanian pilots and an offer of a reward for their deaths. Al-Kaseasbeh was reportedly shot down in his F-16 fighter bomber on Dec. 24 during an air operation near the militants’ stronghold of Raqqa in eastern Syria, according to the New York Times.

U.S. National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said administration officials were examining the video. "We are aware of the video purporting to show that [al-Kaseasbeh] has been murdered by the terrorist group ISIL," read Meehan's statement. "The intelligence community is working to confirm its authenticity. The United States strongly condemns ISIL’s actions and we call for the immediate release of all those held captive by ISIL. We stand in solidarity with the government of Jordan and the Jordanian people."

President Barack Obama met Tuesday with Abdullah in the Oval Office, where he offered his condolences. "I think it will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of the global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated,” he said.

The Islamic State had asked Jordanian officials to trade al-Kaseasbeh for Sajida al-Rishawi, an Iraqi woman held in prison in Jordan after a 2005 suicide bomb attack that killed 60 people in Amman. Rishawi was one of those executed Wednesday.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the brutality of IS was "beyond comprehension," according to AFP. "It has nothing to do with our religion."

http://www.ibtimes.com/after-jordanian-p...55-1805814

The King is a qualified Cobra pilot so there is speculation on him flying missions as well. One would figure that any ISIS units within 100ks of the Jordanian border will be getting hit hard and often.

[lskdfjldsf]

I wouldn't mistake the relatively peaceful coexistence of ISIS and Israel with conspiracy. I think it's a fair point that Israel has something to gain from regional instability; their most dangerous neighbors are being toppled left and right, sucking the region into a power vacuum. Israel will likely never be invaded again by a unified conventional military force with columns of tanks and armored vehicles.

But creating an ideological monster (an ideology well established at this point as being anti-Israel, anti-US, anti-Saudi, and anti-Shiite) a stones throw from the border is the equivalent of cutting off your own arm because you have a broken hand. No country is capable of penning in an insurgent force rooted in religious extremism - it either needs to be killed off, or it will survive, grow, and eventually turn on you. Israel and others are allowing ISIS to grow in order to destabilize the region, but it's a far stretch to suggest that because Israel wants these dictators and monarchies gone and would benefit from such a scenario, they secretly plotted to create ISIS and have been financing, arming, and training them.

Quote:

The energy resources of the region are a priority for the US and Europe, and it is critical for them to be sure that nothings stands in the way of their total control.

This isn't 1990 - oil from the Middle East is no longer our most important economic commodity. The US has surpassed the Saudis as the worlds largest oil producer (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...king-saudi) and Europe imports most of its oil from Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, all of which are completely independent from ISIS-controlled territory and allied against them (http://knoema.com/jygmcvb/crude-oil-impo...-countries)

Many nations meddle in the Middle East, and ISIS is taking advantage of the skepticism in the West stemming from our constant meddling. As I posted earlier, the timing of ISIS's rise isn't a coincidence, they've been waiting patiently for our political and social point of exhaustion in the region and are now capitalizing on it. Western governments and Israel are simply waiting it out, allowing ISIS to cause as much damage to unfavorable state actors as possible, while being weakened itself - very similar to Allied strategy in WW2 when the Soviets were dying by the millions.

[Teedub]

Fitting:

[H1N1]

(02-05-2015 03:15 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

I wouldn't mistake the relatively peaceful coexistence of ISIS and Israel with conspiracy. I think it's a fair point that Israel has something to gain from regional instability; their most dangerous neighbors are being toppled left and right, sucking the region into a power vacuum. Israel will likely never be invaded again by a unified conventional military force with columns of tanks and armored vehicles.

But creating an ideological monster (an ideology well established at this point as being anti-Israel, anti-US, anti-Saudi, and anti-Shiite) a stones throw from the border is the equivalent of cutting off your own arm because you have a broken hand. No country is capable of penning in an insurgent force rooted in religious extremism - it either needs to be killed off, or it will survive, grow, and eventually turn on you. Israel and others are allowing ISIS to grow in order to destabilize the region, but it's a far stretch to suggest that because Israel wants these dictators and monarchies gone and would benefit from such a scenario, they secretly plotted to create ISIS and have been financing, arming, and training them.

Quote:

The energy resources of the region are a priority for the US and Europe, and it is critical for them to be sure that nothings stands in the way of their total control.

This isn't 1990 - oil from the Middle East is no longer our most important economic commodity. The US has surpassed the Saudis as the worlds largest oil producer (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...king-saudi) and Europe imports most of its oil from Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, all of which are completely independent from ISIS-controlled territory and allied against them (http://knoema.com/jygmcvb/crude-oil-impo...-countries)

Many nations meddle in the Middle East, and ISIS is taking advantage of the skepticism in the West stemming from our constant meddling. As I posted earlier, the timing of ISIS's rise isn't a coincidence, they've been waiting patiently for our political and social point of exhaustion in the region and are now capitalizing on it. Western governments and Israel are simply waiting it out, allowing ISIS to cause as much damage to unfavorable state actors as possible, while being weakened itself - very similar to Allied strategy in WW2 when the Soviets were dying by the millions.

I think this ^^ is the more likely analysis.

Have Western governments (particularly the US) been responsible for providing some support for ISIS? Indirectly, absolutely. It's well known that there has been plenty of support from outside interests for the band of insurgents looking to overthrow Assad.

Does a weak and unstable Middle East benefit Western nations, and Israel? Of course, in the aftermath of instability, legitimacy will belong to the parties that can provide stability and security. This is actually one of the reasons ISIS is currently being so successful. They have been very effective at proving their legitimacy to the citizens of the places they've captured. The lights have stayed on, the services have kept running, there are a lot of fighters around who have money to spend, and there will be a buzz in these places because their brother Muslims (understandably, if you hold those beliefs) will feel like they are part of something that could return their ideology to glory. They have none of the problems of income inequality (yet) that the Arab states do, and I suspect there will be a vibe that they are all in it together. Although intangible, this sort of feeling can be a powerful motivator.

Have Western nations and 'The Jewish Lobby' engineered this situation as part of a deliberate policy to rule the Middle East and add it to their collective empires, either as a front for a failing global currency system, or to wrest control of the natural resources and satisfy Israel's hunger for expansion? In my opinion, no. I think you have to keep in mind that just about everything of any significance Government undertakes fails miserably and predictably. I have tremendous respect for Quintus, and the quality of material he puts out, which I have learned a great deal from. On this matter though, I think what evidence there is for a 'conspiracy' is less significant than is being made out. If you consider, for example, the ongoing effects of the PLO, which Israel provided so much funding and support for initially in an attempt to overthrow of Hamas, and the problems it is still causing Israel 30+ years on, I think it is unlikely that they could have deliberately created ISIS to do exactly what they are doing now.

None of that is to say they/we haven't provided limited support, or played a part in ISIS' growth. They probably have. But I think there is a more 'innocent' explanation for the lack of anti-Israeli rhetoric:

ISIS is formed from a great many different tribes, and although they haven't just sprung up out of nowhere, they went from being stateless, loosely aligned tribes, to taking possession of a large swathe of territory, needing to provide a great many administrative capabilities to the areas they control, have the skill and logistics to continue with oil production, export, fundraising etc. Clearly this shows that there has been long term planning and recruitment from those at the heart of the movement, and that this has been in the works for a lot longer than it has been on our television screens.

The point is, having experienced success, they need to consolidate it. This is a very dangerous time for them. They are still establishing legitimacy within the regions they control, they are stretched across a huge area, have many raw recruits joining that require administration, feeding, clothing, training etc, and whilst consolidating all of this, they also need to keep expanding, and keep the momentum they've gained alive. The West are a distant threat, with no public appetite for another war, and greatly diminished military capabilities (apart from the US). They (rightly) probably don't think The West will do anything other than some airstrikes and perhaps small bands of special forces for a long time.

Israel poses the only serious threat to ISIS in the region. They are the only country with the fearsome military might and ideological resolve to take the fight to ISIS, and smash them into the ground. Given that ISIS need to become established if they are to endure (truistic, I know), it makes very little sense for them at this point to provoke the only major power in the region, and the only people capable of halting their momentum.

Obviously from Israel's point of view, a pseudo Arab super power on their doorstep is no bueno, but it is by no means a certainty. The more likely scenario is a breakdown of the middle east into minor warring factions, none of whom would be a match for Israel. Why would Israel do anything to stop this, why would we in The West? I'm sure where possible, we/Israel will do whatever we/they can to push and pull and weaken all parties.

If that fails, and ISIS becomes established over years, not months, then I think Israel will (rightly) feel confident that the US, Britain, and Europe would not stand by should ISIS make any moves towards Israel, by which point, there may be greater appetite for war amongst the public, and more funding and resources to carry it out.

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

(02-05-2015 02:28 AM)samsamsam Wrote:  

After Jordanian Pilot Burned Alive, Jordan Launches Airstrikes Against ISIS, Kills 55 In Iraq Including Top Commander 'Prince Of Nineveh'

Quote:

A day after the Islamic State released a video showing a Jordanian pilot being burned alive, Jordan launched airstrikes against the group in Iraq that killed 55 people, including a top commander known as the "Prince of Nineveh," Iraqi media reported Wednesday. The airstrikes came just hours after Jordan's King Abdullah II pledged a "severe" response.

"The blood of martyr Maaz al-Kassasbeh [also spelled Muath al-Kaseasbeh] will not be in vain, and the response of Jordan and its army after what happened to our dear son will be severe," the king said in a statement released by the royal court. Jordan also executed two jihadist prisoners by hanging Wednesday morning, government spokesman Mohammed al-Momani said.

Jordan had said it would beef up its role in the U.S.-led coalition against the militant group also known as ISIS. White House spokesman Alistair Baskey said, "The president and King Abdullah reaffirmed that the vile murder of this brave Jordanian will only serve to steel the international community's resolve to destroy IS."

The video released by ISIS showed al-Kaseasbeh with his clothes drenched in fuel as flames engulfed him. It concluded with pictures of what the Islamic State claimed were other Jordanian pilots and an offer of a reward for their deaths. Al-Kaseasbeh was reportedly shot down in his F-16 fighter bomber on Dec. 24 during an air operation near the militants’ stronghold of Raqqa in eastern Syria, according to the New York Times.

U.S. National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said administration officials were examining the video. "We are aware of the video purporting to show that [al-Kaseasbeh] has been murdered by the terrorist group ISIL," read Meehan's statement. "The intelligence community is working to confirm its authenticity. The United States strongly condemns ISIL’s actions and we call for the immediate release of all those held captive by ISIL. We stand in solidarity with the government of Jordan and the Jordanian people."

President Barack Obama met Tuesday with Abdullah in the Oval Office, where he offered his condolences. "I think it will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of the global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated,” he said.

The Islamic State had asked Jordanian officials to trade al-Kaseasbeh for Sajida al-Rishawi, an Iraqi woman held in prison in Jordan after a 2005 suicide bomb attack that killed 60 people in Amman. Rishawi was one of those executed Wednesday.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the brutality of IS was "beyond comprehension," according to AFP. "It has nothing to do with our religion."

http://www.ibtimes.com/after-jordanian-p...55-1805814

55 people, according to who? And I doubt even half of them were combatants. You can bet there will be close up photos of children and women dead on Jihadi social media, with captions like blood thirsty lapdogs of the crusaders strike again, etc etc.

Anyway, that burning video will net them way more than 55 recruits.
So, still a net plus for them, even if you make the very questionable assumption that Jordan hit a purely military target and that target was of any value.
Plus, having people killed by Jordanian strikes fits EXACTLY with their worldview/propaganda, as shown in the first 15 minutes of the video.
People who say the video was designed to scare away Jordan and have it back away from the US coalition are wrong...it was designed to provoke a response that would seemingly confirm their propaganda.
Anyway, this isn't ending anytime soon, and as others have pointed out, there is a lot of behind the scenes power plays going on.

[Orion]

(02-05-2015 02:47 AM)Saga Wrote:  

That's true to a point, but the major mistakes of Baathists like Nasser (who was completely outfoxed and beaten in 1956, tried to make it look like a victory, then was promptly humiliated in 1967 because he failed to learn from those lessons) and the vindictive cruelty of leaders like Saddam (his treatment of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs was deplorable by any standard) have certainly done the ideology no favors. There were many years in which Baathist secularism looked ascendant in the middle east, but that's long gone now.

Of course, Baathism is essentially a modernist idea, and as every other of it's kind, it has it's expiration date. However, as much as Nasser was an awful strategist who wasted entire potential of his armed forces, they still did pose a threat to Israel. Remember, in Yom Kipur war, Egypt breached Suez Canal trench lines and launched an offensive on Israeli positions. That sounds like sci-fi scenario today. Syria occupied Lebanon. Although none of them succeeded or came close to militarily defeating Israel, they actually posed threat. Today, they all look like banana states. Syrian Army is gaining valuable fighting experience in current war but what is it compared to all devastation and depopulation ?

Quote:

The history of US involvement in the middle east has been an ignoble sequence of blunders, errors and outright malice, I agree. But what's done is done, none of us can change the past, and despite it all there is an opportunity for things to improve. Iraqi Shia cooperation with Iran might prove a positive long-term development, while Turkey's willingness to work with the Kurdish regional government is both welcome and unprecedented.

How come it was history of errors, when control over region has gradually only been increasing ? From having control over Israel and couple of gulf states, to controlling everything besides Iran and Syria.