ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

[EvilSooty]

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.

A letter from the US department that released the report. Enough proof? This is getting silly.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwi6sv-D54TiAhXjXRUIHd1QDtkQFjAAegQIBBAC&url=https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2AUZZJ6Ba6L_fQ3U6qhPWk

"THE SALAFIST [sic], THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.

THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA AND IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.

Al QAEDA – IRAQ (AQI):… B. AQI SUPPORTED THE SYRIAN OPPOSITION FROM THE BEGINNING, BOTH IDEOLOGICALLY AND THROUGH THE MEDIA…

IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OFESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)"

There they are saying what was obvious to everyone: the opposition were mainly jihadis yet the US still backed them and hoped for what became ISIS to weaken Syria. The existence of ISIS then became their excuse to start illegally bombing Syria (who invited them again?) and to occupy the north where the oil is denying it to the gov for reconstruction efforts.

They weren't interested in fighting ISIS anywhere else as they were inflicting heavy losses on the Syrian army which was the whole point.

Their fear of the Syrian air defences didn't stop them bombing them after several chemical weapon hoaxes.

But hey, believe what you like. The US is fighting Islamic terrorism in Syria...sure they are.

Explain why the US threatened military action against Syria if they tried to retake Idlib even though it has thousands of Al Qaeda offshoots in it.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/1...n-against-syria-assad-airstrike-trump-bolton/

Why is the US protecting Al Qaeda in Syria?

 

[Johno please?]

Exactly Iraq was zero threat to anyone so the whole war was illegal with no justification.

The problem is destroying/destabilising governments and using jihadi proxies for geopolitical reasons leaving a power vacuum where they can come to power.

The kurds, iran and kuwait would disagree, and its a good job he wasn't ever allowed to get hold of nuclear weapons.

And yet in Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan the US is helping train government forces to fight these same jihadis were supposed to be on the side of, so which is it?

 

[StriderX]

The kurds, iran and kuwait would disagree, and its a good job he wasn't ever allowed to get hold of nuclear weapons.

And yet in Africa the US is helping train government forces to fight these same jihadis were supposed to be on the side of, so which is it?

Both.

 

[RoboCod]

"

There they are saying what was obvious to everyone: the opposition were mainly jihadis yet the US still backed them and hoped for what became ISIS to weaken Syria.

So what? Are you applying morals to strategic level political and military power games? So what??

 

[RoboCod]

They weren't interested in fighting ISIS anywhere else as they were inflicting heavy losses on the Syrian army which was the whole point.

So what??

 

[EvilSooty]

So what? Are you applying morals to strategic level political and military power games? So what??

So what??

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.

 

[EvilSooty]

The kurds, iran and kuwait would disagree, and its a good job he wasn't ever allowed to get hold of nuclear weapons.

Iraq is still a complete mess and around a million Iraqis were killed as a result. Indefensible.

Nuclear weapons? Besides them not having any as we all know now the 'WMDs' claims were complete lies the best way to ensure nuclear proliferation is to carry on toppling government after government as it sends a message to small countries in the croshairs of the US that the only way to defend themselves is with nukes.

Gaddafi voluntarily dismantled Libya's nuclear program and look what happened to him.

And yet in Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan the US is helping train government forces to fight these same jihadis were supposed to be on the side of, so which is it?

The US, and our gov, have no principles and will use whatever group is convenient.

ISIS is enemy incarnate yet the 'moderate' rebels were great even though they are made of numerous Islamist groups barely distinguishable from them.

 

[Johno please?]

Iraq is still a complete mess and around a million Iraqis were killed as a result. Indefensible.

Well that numbers false but yea it was a lot, id say it also wasnt worth the british and american lives either, that being said there certainly was a case for Saddams removal.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...t-saddam-didn-t-have-nuclear-weapons-yet.html

 

[Johno please?]

The US, and our gov, have no principles and will use whatever group is convenient.

I think muslims in Kosovo would strongly disagree.

 

[EvilSooty]

Well that numbers false but yea it was a lot, id say it also wasnt worth the british and american lives either, that being said there certainly was a case for Saddams removal.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...t-saddam-didn-t-have-nuclear-weapons-yet.html

Lancet in 2006 estimated 655,000.
ORB in 2008 put it at around a million.

The ORB report has been widely criticised as the press and government has played down the counts, but the the Lancet report's authors have said the ORB counts sounded correct given they covered a longer time period.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11613349

The Lancet authors even said their figure of 655,000 was conservative so probably a lot more and the violence is still ongoing! But yeah, a hell of a lot died regardless.

There was no case for Saddam's removal. It was a war of aggression (what the Nazis were hanged for), not one of self-defence, and there was no UN security council resolution permitting it.

Hitchens was a warmongerer.

It was obviously about oil, not an imaginary Iraqi threat. Iraq was an ally of the US against Iran before the first Iraq War yet after that they somehow transformed into evil incarnate.

 

[EvilSooty]

I think muslims in Kosovo would strongly disagree.

I'm sure they and anyone else who benefits from the US and its vassals attacking countries for geopolitical reasons would.

Have a look through the Wikileaks US embassy cables. They couldn't give a **** about human rights or anything noble they spout for public consumption.

 

[Rroff]

It was obviously about oil, not an imaginary Iraqi threat. Iraq was an ally of the US against Iran before the first Iraq War yet after that they somehow transformed into evil incarnate.

Well many say that is because the US first enabled Sadam and then lost control of him.

As with many things in the Middle East the truth invariable lies somewhere between the two sides.

 

[EvilSooty]

Well many say that is because the US first enabled Sadam and then lost control of him.

As with many things in the Middle East the truth invariable lies somewhere between the two sides.

Saddam checked with the US first if going to war with Kuwait would have been OK and the US ambassador effectively greenlit it. Sounds like they set him up to create a reason to topple him.

"As John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago and Harvard’s Stephen Walt wrote in 2003, “Saddam reportedly decided on war sometime in July 1990, but before sending his army into Kuwait, he approached the United States to find out how it would react.”

In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, “[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.” The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had “no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.” The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did.

Exactly what was said during the meeting has been a source of some controversy. Accounts differ. According to a transcript released by the Iraqi government, Glaspie told Hussein, ” I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country.”

I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60’s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction."

https://billmoyers.com/2014/06/27/t...o-sold-to-the-public-based-on-a-pack-of-lies/

The attack on Iraq in 2003 was a superpower and its vassals demolishing a defenseless country based on lies with no justification at all. As clear cut as you can get for a war crime.

 

[Johno please?]

There was no case for Saddam's removal.

Well there was you just don't want to listen to it, or maybe youre so opposed you're actually on the side of totalitarian dictatorship?

As for the on going violence, when someone walks into mosque in Baghdad and blows himself up, despite what people like you think, that isnt the fault of tony blair and george bush, don't absolve the murderers of their crimes.

 

[Malevolence]

Well there was you just don't want to listen to it, or maybe youre so opposed you're actually on the side of totalitarian dictatorship?

But those dictators (Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad. Mubarak et al.) were the only things keeping all the tribal infighting in check. Remove them and it's chaos. Anybody with half a brain could see what would happen if they were removed from power.

 

[EvilSooty]

Well there was you just don't want to listen to it, or maybe youre so opposed you're actually on the side of totalitarian dictatorship?

The old if you don't favour removing 'X' leader based on lies then you must be in favour of them....

Was it in self-defence? No.
Was there a UN Security Council resolution approving it? No.

So no basis in law then.

So was it do with some kind of moral, albeit illegal, quest to remove a totalitarian dictator for freedom and democracy? I struggle with that one given we have no problem with totalitarian dictators like Saudi. Do you support a war to overthrow the Saudi kings? They just executed 30-odd people including crucifying one in the last few weeks (many for attending pro-democracy marches) so if Iraq is fair game why not Saudi?

Or maybe, just maybe, our leaders couldn't give a damn about human rights, freedom, democracy etc and use it as an excuse to pick off governments they have targeted for geopolitical reasons?

Causing the deaths of at a conservative minimum of 700K is a strange way to bring freedom.

As for the on going violence, when someone walks into mosque in Baghdad and blows himself up, despite what people like you think, that isnt the fault of tony blair and george bush, don't absolve the murderers of their crimes.

Invade and occupy a country dissolving its army, security forces and civil institutions leaving a power vacuum and you are responsible for all that follows.

 

[RoboCod]

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.

You're posting like you're having a "woke" revelation or something. My question is poignant and you haven't answered it.... SO WHAT?

 

[Johno please?]

So was it do with some kind of moral, albeit illegal, quest to remove a totalitarian dictator for freedom and democracy? I struggle with that one given we have no problem with totalitarian dictators like Saudi. Do you support a war to overthrow the Saudi kings? They just executed 30-odd people including crucifying one in the last few weeks (many for attending pro-democracy marches) so if Iraq is fair game why not Saudi?

Or maybe, just maybe, our leaders couldn't give a damn about human rights, freedom, democracy etc and use it as an excuse to pick off governments they have targeted for geopolitical reasons?

I'm no fan of the saudi regime but they haven't committed genocide like Saddam did.

 

[EvilSooty]

You're posting like you're having a "woke" revelation or something. My question is poignant and you haven't answered it.... SO WHAT?

If you don't care one way or the other why say anything?

Bother someone else, troll.

 

[EvilSooty]

I'm no fan of the saudi regime but they haven't committed genocide like Saddam did.

Yemen.