The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[theSwayze]

Exactly how I said it would happen. No more American money? Where are they going to get funding? You realize the U.S. essentially created the Islamic State to overthrow Assad, right? And the idiots dedicating their lives to this have plenty of motivation. If we stop killing over there in lands we don't belong, you stop their recruiting pipeline.

Now Israel is also supporting the Islamic State because they are Sunni and Assad is Shi'a, and Israel is more concerned with how powerful Iran has become as a result of America's brilliant adventures in Iraq. But, again, if they want to destabilize the region that is on them. There is no reason we should be involved.

You are going to have to provide some facts to back this assertion. As I understand it this is the opposite of how it happened. Assad has been propping up ISIS with money arms and oil since day one to create a bigger threat to middle east stability than Syrias own civil war. US is obligated to oppose terrorism and try and maintain stability- so Assad makes sure there is a growing terrorist threat- which makes it really easy for the US to not focus on Syria which is politically super messy for the US.

 

[gourimoko]

Wait wut

The Mossad has been caught numerous times supporting both Hamas and Hezbollah... I think Optimus is saying that Israel has a vested interest in destabilizing the region, which is pretty self-evident; therefore, if they follow their pattern and practice of funding terrorist organizations then they may be supporting ISIS.

This isn't even unique to Israel, in fact, the practice has been around since the turn of the 20th century.

America's involvement in this kind of shit has happened since the 1940s, throughout Europe and the Middle East, and picked up greatly in the 50s and 60s. For example, the entire political situation in Iran (meaning, the theocracy in place today) is primarily the fault of a failed CIA operation to impose hegemony by way of converting Middle East nations into puppet states, not under European control, but American control. We installed the Shah of Iran and toppled Mossadeq creating an unstable and untenable situation that resulted in the Islamic Revolution.

These types of operations were chiefly augmented and put into place by Allen Dulles and James Angleton.

This example, particularly, of Western covert involvement was one of the primary motivating factors of radicalization in the region. In essence, the radicals chief excuse, and it is only that, is that the West will not let them have self-determination. Understand, self-determination is not democracy; Sharia Islam is incompatible with democracy. But that the people there, even if by way of force, should dictate their own lives.

Personally, as an Arab, I think America would be best served if the entire Middle East were left to it's own devices - for better or worse. I'm not saying we should leave ISIS alone; but I certainly do not think we should be invading Arab states as that will not play well with the majority of Arabs/Muslims worldwide.

 

[gourimoko]

They're all the same thing to some people.

Those people are generally not going to have a civilized discussion on the matter.

ISIS absolutely doesn't want to be left alone. They want to keep provoking the West in order for them to keep spending billions upon billions of dollars that only end up making them hate us more and recruit more Muslims in the process.

Their biggest recruiting tool has been the US jumping at every provocation.

This, 100%.

 

[macbdog]

Pilot from Jordan that they captured was burned alive in a cage. Sick motherfuckers...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/04/w...ve-jordanian-pilot-to-death-in-new-video.html

Explains why their demands changed so suddenly in negotiations and why they refused to provide proof of life. May be a sign of discord, too, because I can't imagine they would discard a hostage they were negotiating over.

 

[Soda]

Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if there isn't a shred of evidence to support it.

You haven't supported your assertion, either.. So, I'm thinking it's pretty absurd to say this.

 

[gourimoko]

You are going to have to provide some facts to back this assertion. As I understand it this is the opposite of how it happened. Assad has been propping up ISIS with money arms and oil since day one to create a bigger threat to middle east stability than Syrias own civil war. US is obligated to oppose terrorism and try and maintain stability- so Assad makes sure there is a growing terrorist threat- which makes it really easy for the US to not focus on Syria which is politically super messy for the US.

It's more complicated than that, but, yes, the United States from 2008-2012 funded, armed by proxy, and even trained -- yes trained -- Syrian rebels in Jordan and many of those rebels broke with the al-Nusra Front and other Syrian rebel factions and joined al-Baghdadi in Iraq. It is widely believed that the majority of Syrian components (personnel, armaments, etc) to the Islamic State were funded and provided by other Arab and/or Western powers originally intended to combat Assad.

Had the United States not involved itself, or it's proxy states, it is highly unlikely the Islamic State would have had the means, motive, or opportunity to do what they've done; beginning with the decision to invade Iraq, to the botched attempts to overthrow Assad, to the failed attempt to nation-build in an Iraq that should have been broken apart into three states.

 

[gourimoko]

Explains why their demands changed so suddenly in negotiations and why they refused to provide proof of life. May be a sign of discord, too, because I can't imagine they would discard a hostage they were negotiating over.

al-Baghdadi has issued fatwas making hostage exchanges and the collection of ransoms next to impossible; regardless of the intention of those holding the prisoners. Negotiations are doomed to fail, because the intent is to murder the hostage - not to barter for them.

And thats really the point, they don't actually want anything for the hostages. These killings are simply terrorist attacks played out in front of a world stage.

 

[Sebastian]

I'm not convinced that the US should be actively trying to overthrow Assad. He's a bastard no doubt but so is everyone else running those nations. Never try to overthrow secular leaders in the Middle East. I'd rather he stay.

But, since Obama is a retard when it comes to foreign policy, we are stuck in fights (Libya, Syria) that mean little to us in the long run so he can promote the pipe-dream of democracy, and in the case of Libya, cheap oil for France and Italy.

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

Not a wise decision by ISIS to provoke the Jordanian Military.

It's one thing to try and take over the shattered state of Iraq. It's a whole other deal to try and take on Jordan. Good luck with that one, fuck faces.

 

[Amherstcavsfan]

I'm not convinced that the US should be actively trying to overthrow Assad. He's a bastard no doubt but so is everyone else running those nations. Never try to overthrow secular leaders in the Middle East. I'd rather he stay.

But, since Obama is a retard when it comes to foreign policy, we are stuck in fights (Libya, Syria) that mean little to us in the long run so he can promote the pipe-dream of democracy.

You would think, after Egypt and Iraq, that we wouldn't be in the business of getting rid of the devils we knew. Let their own people sort their own shit out.

Unfortunately, we've had a consistent stream of morons in the oval office that seems to each have their own idea of how the ME should be run.

 

[CleveRocks]

I'm not convinced that the US should be actively trying to overthrow Assad. He's a bastard no doubt but so is everyone else running those nations. Never try to overthrow secular leaders in the Middle East. I'd rather he stay.

But, since Obama is a retard when it comes to foreign policy, we are stuck in fights (Libya, Syria) that mean little to us in the long run so he can promote the pipe-dream of democracy, and in the case of Libya, cheap oil for France and Italy.

Might be the first thing I disagree with you on. Assad is an unsustainable ally, and we should have cleaned up that mess when we went into Iraq. He's been trying to go nuclear and he is the only viable military on that side of Israel. It had been a mess but a better one to manage than the shitstorm we currently have

 

[Sebastian]

Might be the first thing I disagree with you on. Assad is an unsustainable ally, and we should have cleaned up that mess when we went into Iraq. He's been trying to go nuclear and he is the only viable military on that side of Israel. It had been a mess but a better one to manage than the shitstorm we currently have

Never said I saw him as an ally. However, Syria was as contained as one could contain a nation. Whereas he and his Baathist regime are annoying to us, one can't really deem them enough of a threat to waste resources trying trying to depose him. If anything, he is (was) useful in keeping Radical Islam out of the Levant.

1. His chemical and nuclear programs never had a chance at achieving much with Israel ready to destroy critical infrastructure at the slightest whiff of intelligence that Syria was progressing. And they knew it judging by their tepid efforts over the past decade.

2. Their military wasn't really much of a threat.

3. If Iraq went full tilt toward fundamentalism, Syria would have been useful. Baathists HATE Wahhabists and Alawite Baathists really, really hate the Sunni crazies that helped establish ISIS.

4. With Turkey to the north, Israel to the south and Iraq between them and Iran, they were pretty well buttoned up.

The inevitable consequence of undermining secular Middle Eastern leaders is the unleashing of the forces of Radical Islam that people like Assad, his father, Mubarek and Gaddafi had been battling. Every generation has seen a revolt by extremists, except this time, we were stupid enough to help the crazies and now, like clockwork, Johnny Jihadis are running amok in Libya and Syria with spillover into Iraq. Egypt and Jordan may be next. It terms of strategic planning, it is a short-sighted, high cost, low reward venture that has characterized Obama's foreign policy since 2011.

 

[gourimoko]

You would think, after Egypt and Iraq, that we wouldn't be in the business of getting rid of the devils we knew. Let their own people sort their own shit out.

Unfortunately, we've had a consistent stream of morons in the oval office that seems to each have their own idea of how the ME should be run.

Unfortunately, the prevailing philosophy in Washington is that we cannot withdraw from the Middle East. We must protect our "ally" Israel, perpetually, and we must prop up regimes like Saudi Arabia regardless of how they oppress their people.

Honestly, the situation is such a mess... far worse than most people really think or understand.

 

[Chris]

The Mossad has been caught numerous times supporting both Hamas and Hezbollah... I think Optimus is saying that Israel has a vested interest in destabilizing the region, which is pretty self-evident; therefore, if they follow their pattern and practice of funding terrorist organizations then they may be supporting ISIS.

This isn't even unique to Israel, in fact, the practice has been around since the turn of the 20th century.

America's involvement in this kind of shit has happened since the 1940s, throughout Europe and the Middle East, and picked up greatly in the 50s and 60s. For example, the entire political situation in Iran (meaning, the theocracy in place today) is primarily the fault of a failed CIA operation to impose hegemony by way of converting Middle East nations into puppet states, not under European control, but American control. We installed the Shah of Iran and toppled Mossadeq creating an unstable and untenable situation that resulted in the Islamic Revolution.

These types of operations were chiefly augmented and put into place by Allen Dulles and James Angleton.

This example, particularly, of Western covert involvement was one of the primary motivating factors of radicalization in the region. In essence, the radicals chief excuse, and it is only that, is that the West will not let them have self-determination. Understand, self-determination is not democracy; Sharia Islam is incompatible with democracy. But that the people there, even if by way of force, should dictate their own lives.

Personally, as an Arab, I think America would be best served if the entire Middle East were left to it's own devices - for better or worse. I'm not saying we should leave ISIS alone; but I certainly do not think we should be invading Arab states as that will not play well with the majority of Arabs/Muslims worldwide.

I would have zero issue if the United States just said FU and pulled out of the region altogether and "left them to their own devices" as you put it. Zero issue at all. The amount of money, resources, not to mention human lives we've spent over there is just sickening and to what end? It's disturbing. I wish we could just focus all our manpower on improving our country within our own borders and let them all fight each other. I'm all for humanitarian missions and stuff, it's not like I don't care about dictators that oppress people and stuff, it's just it's clear nobody wants us over there, nobody wants us to come give them democracy or whatever, and we are only making things worse. We'd best just leave them alone. I trust our national security agencies enough to protect us from terrorist threats if they try to hit us here.

I know this will never happen though, just wish it would.

 

[gourimoko]

I would have zero issue if the United States just said FU and pulled out of the region altogether and "left them to their own devices" as you put it. Zero issue at all. The amount of money, resources, not to mention human lives we've spent over there is just sickening and to what end? It's disturbing. I wish we could just focus all our manpower on improving our country within our own borders and let them all fight each other. I'm all for humanitarian missions and stuff, it's not like I don't care about dictators that oppress people and stuff, it's just it's clear nobody wants us over there, nobody wants us to come give them democracy or whatever, and we are only making things worse. We'd best just leave them alone. I trust our national security agencies enough to protect us from terrorist threats if they try to hit us here.

I know this will never happen though, just wish it would.

The bolded though... it's part of the problem.