ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

EvilSooty said:
?

It's a genuine 2012 US intelligence report from the Defense Intelligence Agency declassified as part of a court case. Google it.

Shows how our press was all in it together with the government and their regime change plan in Syria that this isn't more widely known.

States very clearly the Syrian opposition were predominantly jihadi nutters from the outset yet we still backed them and hoped a 'Salafist principality' would emerge to weaken Assad.

It did: ISIS.
Click to expand...

They didn't "create" ISIS, as in a conscious positive action that was carried out by the US. They spawned out of consequence, they weren't intentional.

The document doesn't look genuine to me.
 
EvilSooty said:
Here's the Guardian talking about it. It is genuine.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

Created? No. Encouraged and allowed them to grow? Definitely.

Remember the US bombing campaign before Russia got involved? During it ISIS were still growing in power taking over gov-controlled areas and sending huge convoys of oil to Turkey.

The largest military in the world couldn't stop that? They spared them. Russia joins and actually attacks them and within months the tide turns. Funny that. They showed satellite images of the huge convoys the US 'missed'.

Again, read that report. They admit to it... straight from the horse's mouth.
Click to expand...

How does that prove the document is genuine?

The Western forces were concentrated on removing them from the main cities of Mosul and Raqqah. What interest is there in focusing effort on mopping up open expanses of meaningless desert? Further, the West doesn't have air superiority over the whole of Syria, due to the Syrian Air Defence. It seems that it is you that is the one who has succumbed to the media agenda of one particular side here.
 
EvilSooty said:
The only point I made when first commenting on this thread was that the US backed what later became ISIS and spared them as well as other jihadis including the thousands of Al Qaeda in Idlib on whose behalf they threatened military intervention against Syria (which could have dragged Russia in). I have backed up what I have said after your repeated attempts to question the report I quoted's origin. You haven't made many other points.

If the US and our own government helping jihadis merely elicits a 'so what?' then there's no point replying further unless you actually have some point to make?

This is a thread discussing ISIS so I think it's important to draw attention to the west's involvement in their origin as well as our ongoing protection of other jihadis for those who aren't familiar with what we are up to in Syria.

There's talk of a Syrian offensive against the Al Qaeda offshoots in Idlib in the near future.

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/...for-an-attack-on-idlib-province.html#comments

Just wait for the fake chemical weapons attack and our press and government rushing to defend jihadis even if it risks war with Russia.
Click to expand...
You're posting like you're having a "woke" revelation or something. My question is poignant and you haven't answered it.... SO WHAT?
 
ubersonic said:
Valid point, in fact they are even doing good over in Yemen by supporting the democratically elected government forces in coalition efforts against Iranian backed extremists.
Click to expand...
It's a shame they don't really adhere much to laws of armed conflict and it's also pretty difficult to moderate that when it comes to their air strikes. Still, if the Houtis are launching SSMs over at Riyadh, they're well within their right to retaliate.
 
StriderX said:
If you poke a dog, you don’t get to cry about it if it attacks you.

They are only within their right because they joined into a conflict they shouldn’t have. The houthis are within their right to attack their enemy. As apparently it’s gucci that the Saudis are allowed to kill journalists in foreign countries and bomb defenceless school children in buses, there are no rules.

The west is failing rather spectacularly in this holier than thou moral position.
Click to expand...
You do realise it was militarised Zaidis that first started attacks on Riyadh? This was in response to Sunni ideologies being pushed from SA. The Shia insurgency has since been armed and funded by the Iranians. SA didn't have a choice in being in the conflict if it is them who are being attacked.

Anyhow, by your logic, if the Houthis are green lighted to attack their enemies then surely the Saudis are? :confused:
 
Zethor said:
I am not interested in debating every bottom feeder who relies on Youtube and crackpot conspiracy theories for his talking points. Your views are not worth discussing, the only positive thing one could get out of reading them would be insight related to the workings of paranoid delusions.
Click to expand...
Imagine putting so much effort into regurgitating dross you scoured from the Internet only when to be asked what the "so what" of it all is he can't answer! He was completely stumped and clearly just got upset. Leave him to post, it gives him satisfaction that he thinks people care.
 
tang0 said:

Hmm I remember when me and others were called crazy conspiracy theorists by those who hold a very simplistic black & white view of the world, as to why anyone would stage a chemical attack complete with fake victims, to get a desired political outcome

It was obvious at the time because it made zero sense as to why Assad would do that to his own people, he was winning.
Click to expand...
You're so woke dude
 
h4rm0ny said:
How many documented instances of governments conducting or conspiring with false flags do you need to be made aware of before you'd consider it possible in this case? And why is it suddenly not possible now? Because it's the USA or Israel? Because I have bad news for you about that. Why is it so unlikely when it's hugely useful to Assad's enemies? When the means are so easily within their capability? When it actively harmed Syria but you still believe it to be Syria's fault? When the OPCW were actively prevented from investigating and the USA has prior history in subborning the OPCW that we know about. Logic and reason at the least make a good case for the US or Israel forces or their allies perpetrating either a false flag or a hoax and at worst make a strong case that this is what happened. Your utter dismissal of the possibility, your mocking of people who consider it, frankly that tells us all we need to know about your actual honesty or open-mindedness on the subject. And clearly lacking at least one of those two, you have nothing worth adding here.
Click to expand...
Oh I don't deny that there are a lot of things that happen behind the scenes and that many things are orchestrated. What I don't agree with is the dramatisation and the ridiculous heroic like self deprecating some people want to portray. For example, the usual blame of the west for absolutely every wrong in the world (it's pretty much the case that the wrongs were there in the first place and the west just exacerbates it all to help fuel its rich lifestyle - critics deal with it or get off the Internet and live in a cave, hypocrites). To the wild claims that the west solely are responsible for 600k+ iraqi deaths. Statements like that smack of dishonesty, lack of understanding, or just merely driving an agenda..

The mocking is purely because these people come across that they're suddenly making a revelation on these matters. No, they're not, they're regurgitating third hand "news" sources at best, CT site drivel at worst.
 
Dis86 said:
Because signatures of a guy who has signed off reports before can't be copied? I love CT loons. They're brilliant.

CT loon: everything you read is lies!
Normal person: but how do you know your sources are genuine?
CT loon: cos cos...cos...yours are lies! Open your eyes! Sheeple. Mainstream media!
Click to expand...
His problem is, as he states, he thinks he knows better than everyone else. He thinks everyone sees the world in black and white and that we think we are the 'good' guys, so we're therefore stupid. As soon as you declare yourself 'woke AF' it's clear to every other sensible person that you're a cretin. This is why engaging in conversation with the woke bot is futile. It's not interested in your view, because it's automatically wrong.
 
So apparently bombing someone suddenly makes you allies with everyone else who is their enemy. Ha, and it has the audacity to accuse others of a black and white simple view of the world. Oh the ironing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom