ISIS in Iraq and Syria

Eboue said:
The United States sent weapons to the free syrian army after Assad used chemical weapons on civilians. You know, the same Assad you want to be in power? The U.S. also sent weapons to Kurdish fighters. Some of those weapons ended up in the hands of ISIS but for you to say the U.S. "created and supplied ISIS" is asinine and disingenuous. Worse still is support for saddam, who also used chemical weapons on civilians.
Click to expand...

It's funny how you always use big words, yet it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about or about the geopolitics of the area.

The free Syrian army is just as bad as ISIS and actually plenty of fighters have crossed over between the groups. So yeah the US knew exactly what they were doing when they begun supplying know Jihadists and Al Qaeda fighters. I don't support or like either Sadam or Assad, but they provided some sort of stability to the area.

I bet you still think there are WMD's in Iraq don't you?
 
Eboue said:
Intervention and support for the very dictators that sonny wants back.
Click to expand...
I'm not denying the silliness of the latter part of his post (Assad and Saddam). But particularly in Iraq, the US and UK motives behind war and subsequent policies since have a direct or indirect cause to ISIS and other groups like ISIS. I suppose you could extend this to Afghanistan as well.
 
SonnyTheHaloPro said:
It's funny how you always use big words, yet it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about or about the geopolitics of the area.

The free Syrian army is just as bad as ISIS and actually plenty of fighters have crossed over between the groups. So yeah the US knew exactly what they were doing when they begun supplying know Jihadists and Al Qaeda fighters. I don't support or like either Sadam or Assad, but they provided some sort of stability to the area.

I bet you still think there are WMD's in Iraq don't you?
Click to expand...

I actually have a degree in politics whereas you have...what exactly? I've ever thought there were wmds in Iraq, for the record. Acting like asinine is a big word is, well, asinine.

Even if the U.S. did know exactly what would happen, it's not what you said. It's certainly not creating ISIS. You're moving the goalposts instead of admitting you were wrong.

You say the U.S. knew exactly what they were doing. Why did they do it? What was their motivation?
 
bishblaize said:
Cheers, I really should get to know the topic better. Hope its better than Curtis' usual stuff.
Click to expand...

The style of the documentary was something I thought was well done, it had these sections of unused random news & documentary footage interlaced with the main narrative driven sections with largely no explanation, no narration or exposition that left you to interpret them in whatever way you wished. There’s the use of cinematic reference points with Solaris (the older version) & Carry on Up The Khyber. It’s quite anti-conspiracy in It’s message too, no hints at a shadowy group or plot but focuses on the cause & effect of a chain of decisions & events and the unwitting chaos they brought in the middle east and it's influence on matters closer to home.

There’s also quite a funny moment when it shows an English Art teacher lecturing a bunch of Afghans on contemporary art. :lol:
 
Eboue said:
The United States sent weapons to the free syrian army after Assad used chemical weapons on civilians. You know, the same Assad you want to be in power? The U.S. also sent weapons to Kurdish fighters. Some of those weapons ended up in the hands of ISIS but for you to say the U.S. "created and supplied ISIS" is asinine and disingenuous. Worse still is support for saddam, who also used chemical weapons on civilians.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest, the US sent weapons to the FSA (via Gulf Arab channels) firmly with the knowledge that the FSA have links with extremist groups like ISIS. Hence, they provided weaponry in the region knowing very well that they'd probably end up in the hands of extremists. It didn't matter then though since they were being used to fight Iranian-ally Assad. Its not as if the US doesn't have a history of arming unsavoury folk to antagonise regional rivals.

Only when US hostages started getting killed and ISIS's atrocities became visible to the world did they start to give a crap. They were perfectly fine with the same atrocities being committed on supporters of the Syrian regime and religious minorities within Syria.
 
Suli said:
I'm thinking about the people who say ISIS is an American invention and all that crap. They refuse to deny that it's anything else like Islam or the general issues in a country. It always has to be Washington that is at fault. Yet we see parallels of ISIS in Boko Haram. Just a thought tbh.
Click to expand...

Calling it an 'American invention' is a bit silly, and there indeed other key reasons why they've come to prominence, but US meddling in the region has been a key factor in all this.
 
Kaos said:
Let's be honest, the US sent weapons to the FSA (via Gulf Arab channels) firmly with the knowledge that the FSA have links with extremist groups like ISIS. Hence, they provided weaponry in the region knowing very well that they'd probably end up in the hands of extremists. It didn't matter then though since they were being used to fight Iranian-ally Assad. Its not as if the US doesn't have a history of arming unsavoury folk to antagonise regional rivals.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, they definitely do. Short termism has plagued decision making for decades. Which is why it is so ironic he wants leaders like Assad and Hussein.
 
Eboue said:
I actually have a degree in politics whereas you have...what exactly? I've ever thought there were wmds in Iraq, for the record. Acting like asinine is a big word is, well, asinine.

Even if the U.S. did know exactly what would happen, it's not what you said. It's certainly not creating ISIS. You're moving the goalposts instead of admitting you were wrong.

You say the U.S. knew exactly what they were doing. Why did they do it? What was their motivation?
Click to expand...

Wow a degree in politics, Woohoo give yourself a pat on the back for that achievement. What University did you attain this degree from, if you don't mind me asking? If you're using it as a stick to beat people with then I guess it must be somewhere prestigious.

As for the part about the US knowing what they were doing. The US and their ally Saudi Arabia are quite happy with destabilizing the area, the reason for this is most probably oil and the us reserve currency. Sadam, Assad and Gadaffi were looking to replace US currency with Gold for trading oil, due to US economy's dependence on this system, they toppled 2/3 of those, while Assad is still holding power.

I found some good video's a while ago, they can explain my point better.

Origins of ISIS


US Involvement
 
Eboue said:
Oh yeah, they definitely do. Short termism has plagued decision making for decades. Which is why it is so ironic he wants leaders like Assad and Hussein.
Click to expand...

He has a point though. I hate Hussein as much as any Kurd on the planet and I don't care for Assad either (contrary to opinions here), but they're definitely a more stable and less harrowing option than the alternative - as pretty much proven to be the case with the clusterfeck in Iraq.

Also, there are ways to antagonise people like Hussein and Assad without full on regime change and arming extremists.
 
SonnyTheHaloPro said:
Wow a degree in politics, Woohoo give yourself a pat on the back for that achievement. What University did you attain this degree from, if you don't mind me asking? If you're using it as a stick to beat people with then I guess it must be somewhere prestigious.

As for the part about the US knowing what they were doing. The US and their ally Saudi Arabia are quite happy with destabilizing the area, the reason for this is most probably oil and the us reserve currency. Sadam, Assad and Gadaffi were looking to replace US currency with Gold for trading oil, due to US economy's dependence on this system, they toppled 2/3 of those, while Assad is still holding power.

I found some good video's a while ago, they can explain my point better.

Origins of ISIS


US Involvement
Click to expand...


You're quite charming. Back on ignore you go. For the record, I'm not using a political science degree to beat anyone with. I only mentioned it after you stated I didn't know anything about politics.
 
Eboue said:
Oh yeah, they definitely do. Short termism has plagued decision making for decades. Which is why it is so ironic he wants leaders like Assad and Hussein.
Click to expand...

I never said I wanted leaders like ASssad and Hussien, you are just talking smack yet again. I said they are needed and better for the region right now. ISIS are filling the power vacuum left behind.

If you think Iraq is doing to be united under some democracy and live happily ever after then haha to you unfortunately. There are hundreds of different ethnic groups in Iraq who all think different parts of territory belongs to them, that's why ISIS beat the Iraqi army so easily earlier last year, because some Iraqi's are not going to give their lives defending another part of Iraq which they are not from.
 
Kaos said:
He has a point though. I hate Hussein as much as any Kurd on the planet and I don't care for Assad either (contrary to opinions here), but they're definitely a more stable and less harrowing option than the alternative - as pretty much proven to be the case with the clusterfeck in Iraq.

Also, there are ways to antagonise people like Hussein and Assad without full on regime change and arming extremists.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the short term thinking that got us here though and causes us support for brutal regimes throughout history. I'm an anti interventionist so I was quite hesitant about any involvement in Syria. But that doesn't excuse support for brutal dictators, even if they are less awful than Isis. Future terrorists are often sown from experiencing and/or witnessing oppression and noticing American support for the oppressors. The less of that American foreign policy enables, the better. Thus my anti interventionism.
 
Eboue said:
That's exactly the short term thinking that got us here though and causes us support for brutal regimes throughout history. I'm an anti interventionist so I was quite hesitant about any involvement in Syria. But that doesn't excuse support for brutal dictators, even if they are less awful than Isis. Future terrorists are often sown from experiencing and/or witnessing oppression and noticing American support for the oppressors. The less of that American foreign policy enables, the better. Thus my anti interventionism.
Click to expand...

The Americans are hardly supporting their oppressors though, in fact on the contrary they're undermining them at any given opportunity.

Anti-interventionism would surely mean refraining from arming any groups - regardless of how 'moderate' they may seem, as history has shown us how these channels are inevitably distorted and we suddenly end up with extremists waging M16s and grenade launchers.
 
Kaos said:
The Americans are hardly supporting their oppressors though, in fact on the contrary they're undermining them at any given opportunity.

Anti-interventionism would surely mean refraining from arming any groups - regardless of how 'moderate' they may seem, as history has shown us how these channels are inevitably distorted and we suddenly end up with extremists waging M16s and grenade launchers.
Click to expand...

It would mean not getting involved in conflicts unless there is an important national interest or an existential threat to the country. My position is that the Syrian civil war fulfills neither of these criteria and thus I an against American intervention.
 
Isn't using a politics degree as a stick to beat people with a bit better than using Youtube videos as a stick to beat people with?

I have an accounting degree, so at the most I will use my pen to tap you with.
 
Assad is every bit as responsible for the rise of IS as anyone else, he happily facilitated the movement of thousands of fighters into Iraq ten years ago.
 
JustAFan said:
Isn't using a politics degree as a stick to beat people with a bit better than using Youtube videos as a stick to beat people with?

I have an accounting degree, so at the most I will use my pen to tap you with.
Click to expand...

I gave YT video's to help explain my point, he used his "politics degree" to try and get personal. Since when did someone need a politics degree to know and learn about geopolitics?
 
Eboue said:
It would mean not getting involved in conflicts unless there is an important national interest or an existential threat to the country. My position is that the Syrian civil war fulfills neither of these criteria and thus I an against American intervention.
Click to expand...

What defines a national interest? I'd have imagined that weakening an Iranian ally would very much constitute a national interest in DC?
 
JustAFan said:
Isn't using a politics degree as a stick to beat people with a bit better than using Youtube videos as a stick to beat people with?

I have an accounting degree, so at the most I will use my pen to tap you with.
Click to expand...

Get your point but I wasn't beating anyone with it. If two people are arguing over how to build a bridge and one of them says "i have an engineering degree", it doesn't make the engineer right but it does mean the other person is foolish for saying "you know nothing about engineering".
 
SonnyTheHaloPro said:
I never said I wanted leaders like ASssad and Hussien, you are just talking smack yet again. I said they are needed and better for the region right now. ISIS are filling the power vacuum left behind.

If you think Iraq is doing to be united under some democracy and live happily ever after then haha to you unfortunately. There are hundreds of different ethnic groups in Iraq who all think different parts of territory belongs to them, that's why ISIS beat the Iraqi army so easily earlier last year, because some Iraqi's are not going to give their lives defending another part of Iraq which they are not from.
Click to expand...

As much as you can argue that Iraq would currently be more stable with a dictator like Hussein and you'd have a point, I think the idea that they are "needed" is wide of the mark and part of what most would disagree with.
 
Eboue said:
Get your point but I wasn't beating anyone with it. If two people are arguing over how to build a bridge and one of them says "i have an engineering degree", it doesn't make the engineer right but it does mean the other person is foolish for saying "you know nothing about engineering".
Click to expand...

My comment was not directed at you.

Like you I also am a non-interventionist. Took a bit of heat on this very forum for stating I wanted the US to first stay out of Libya and then second not get involved in Syria. Was really weird to see posters be against someone from the US taking the position that they do not want the US messing about in another country.

For the record, since someone will ask because they think it is clever. I was against the US invasion of Iraq and as far as Afghanistan, well after 9-11 I saw it as inevitable that we would send the troops in.
 
SonnyTheHaloPro said:
It's funny how you always use big words, yet it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about or about the geopolitics of the area.

The free Syrian army is just as bad as ISIS and actually plenty of fighters have crossed over between the groups. So yeah the US knew exactly what they were doing when they begun supplying know Jihadists and Al Qaeda fighters. I don't support or like either Sadam or Assad, but they provided some sort of stability to the area.

I bet you still think there are WMD's in Iraq don't you?
Click to expand...
I do agree with you and I believe we fecked up however we went to "help" and I blame both parties for been so fecking blind.
 
Eboue said:
Those can't really be compared. One is the decision to fight a war, the other is strategy within a war.
Click to expand...
The US's involvement in Afghanistan was provoked by 9/11 ('the War on Terror').

The US's involvement in Japan was provoked by Pearl Harbour.

So my question still stands-do you feel the US was justified in doing what they did in those two cities?
 
Uzz said:
The US's involvement in Afghanistan was provoked by 9/11 ('the War on Terror').

The US's involvement in Japan was provoked by Pearl Harbour.

So my question still stands-do you feel the US was justified in doing what they did in those two cities?
Click to expand...

It doesn't still stand. If it did, your question would be do I think the US was justified in being involved in the Pacific front at all. You're comparing apples to oranges.

There is a Hiroshima thread on here where we can discuss if you wish. I'll not sidetrack this one further.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Please don't reduce this to an Illuminati argument. It is simply political pragmatism.

The threat from Islamic extremism is virtually naught, so little in fact that the government continue to cut the counter terrorism budget, this time by 50%, to a massive £15m a year!

Work out the figures for yourself. The London tube bomb was in 2005. What has the threat level been in the UK over the last ten years?

Perhaps you enjoy the hysteria in some perverse way, I don't know. I don't buy into it, however.

'The West' hasn't become some opaque term either, it is Western Europe and America. It shouldn't encompass whatever other Middle Eastern states might be our politically pragmatic allies at a given time.

And we don't care about the vast vast majority of atrocities that happen across the world. Verbally condemning an atrocity to colleagues or on an online forum does not equate to caring. How did you sleep last night?

There are some Western people that do genuinely care, they go out there on the ground to try and make a difference, risking their lives. These are people are very few and far between, however.
Click to expand...

The illuminati comment was glib, the point being that I don't think govt/media is as organised or calculated as your previous post seemed to set out. The £15m figure you've cited is just the FCO counter terrorism budget, which doesn't cover the bulk of the Govt's counter-terrorism funding via the Home Office and Security/Intelligence Services. There have been many foiled attacks in the UK since the 2005 London bomb (and some unpreventable e.g. Lee Rigby). Other nations haven't been so lucky, France obviously being the most recent if we're restricting this to Europe/America. As I said, clearly the risk is statistically small in the sense that we're all more likely to die being run over or through illness, but that doesn't mean the risk is negligible or that terrorist attacks are the only measure of the dangers of extremism. In my view the (relatively thankless) work of our security services are in large part to thank for the fact there haven't been more attacks within the UK. I don't feel any of this is particularly unreasonable or radical, so I'm not sure why you've felt you have to make the slightly offensive comment that I might 'enjoy the hysteria'.

I think 'the West' is often used vaguely, where do other developed nations of similar economic status stand, like Japan, Canada or Australia? They've all suffered from terrorism recently and have a virtually identical approach as Europe and America, so what is the distinction? Of course the majority of people weren't kept awake last night by yesterday's sad news, but that won't be the case at a national level, and in individual terms, how much of that is just human nature? As I said before, I think it's natural that countries and their populations will be relatively self-centric and I wouldn't expect individuals in other nations to lose sleep over tragedies that occur on UK soil.
 
B9CGUmGIEAER5Ma.jpg:large
 
Can Eboue not be in favour of a war like that in Afghanistan and yet still be critical of its execution, ie, the lack of ground forces placed around Tora Bora when Bin Laden was all trapped? Can he not criticize, say, General Tommy Franks or Curtis LeMay while supporting the war they participated in?
 
Is there anyone left in Raqqa who isn't a member of ISIS or a supporter of ISIS?
 
ArmandTamzarian said:
It's probably been discussed in here before but anyone interested in the conflicts in the Middle East should watch Bitter Lake on the BBC iPlayer, It's by Adam Curtis and attempts to explain how USA, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and the arab world got to the mess that it is now. It's only on iPlayer though so I only just watched it last night & It does a great job to convey the complexity and nuance of what happened & how the simplistic black and white, good and evil narrative that's often used by Western leaders and western media doesn't give a true picture of the complicated political and religious history of the middle east.. Pretty grim in parts but fascinating throughout.

Trailer here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurti...a-85807434a38e



Full Documentary
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...is-bitter-lake
Click to expand...

This was stunning work by Curtis. Very long, be warned. For all of you discussing American interference you should really watch this. Saudi Arabia are equally complicit.
 
Anyone else completely bemused by various hardline islamic fundamentalist groups coming out and condemning this burning because apparently killing with fire is crossing some sort of line that hacking a man's head off with a hunting knife does not? What kind of mad world do these cnuts live in?!
Ahmed al-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of the al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, and widely considered the world’s most influential Sunni Muslim cleric, condemned the “satanic” Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), calling for its members to be "killed, crucified or to have their limbs amputated" in revenge for the gruesome execution.
Click to expand...

Killing, crucifixion and lopping off of limbs is grand but let's not get crazy and start burning people, ok?
 
rednev said:
So Jordan has started off its revenge executions by killing at least one of the prisoners it was hoping to swap for their now deceased pilot. This is not something that should go without condemnation, IMO. Civilised countries should not act in this manner.
Click to expand...
Fox News applauded his immediate actions and kept going on about Obama hitting the links 6 minutes after the US journalist beheading. Stupid by Obama but Fox should be ashamed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.