General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsISIS in Iraq stinks of CIA/NATO ‘dirty war’ op
http://rt.com/op-edge/168064-isis-terrorism-usa-cia-war/<snip>
For days now, since their dramatic June 10 taking of Mosul, Western mainstream media have been filled with horror stories of the military conquests in Iraq of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, with the curious acronym ISIS.
Details leaking out suggest that ISIS and the major military surge in Iraq - and less so in neighboring Syria - is being shaped and controlled out of Langley, Virginia, and other CIA and Pentagon outposts as the next stage in spreading chaos in the worlds second-largest oil state, Iraq, as well as weakening the recent Syrian stabilization efforts.
Strange facts
The very details of the ISIS military success in the key Iraqi oil center, Mosul, are suspect. According to well-informed Iraqi journalists, ISIS overran the strategic Mosul region, site of some of the worlds most prolific oilfields, with barely a shot fired in resistance. According to one report, residents of Tikrit reported remarkable displays of soldiers handing over their weapons and uniforms peacefully to militants who ordinarily would have been expected to kill government soldiers on the spot.
We are told that ISIS masked psychopaths captured arms and ammunition from the fleeing security forces - arms and ammunition supplied by the American government. The offensive coincides with a successful campaign by ISIS in eastern Syria. According to Iraqi journalists, Sunni tribal chiefs in the region had been convinced to side with ISIS against the Shiite Al-Maliki government in Baghdad. They were promised a better deal under ISIS Sunni Sharia than with Baghdad anti-Sunni rule.
-----------------
Interesting read - another perspective is always good whether you like the source or not.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It is equally difficult to honestly believe that we had no idea that this would spill over into disenfranchised sunni regions of Iraq. We are fighting the Shiite government of Syria, backed by Hezbollah and Iran, and we appear to be far more concerned about Iranian dominance in the region than we are about wahabbi jihadists.
malaise
(267,823 posts)To be kind the West doesn't know its ass from its elbow in that region.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)We put a veneer of "pro democracy" bullshit over our policies, but in reality we have been, since the 80's engaged in preventing Iran from domination of the region. We backed Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. We've backed sunni militants all over the globe. Our policies have massively unfortunate blowback: the invasion of Kuwait, al Qaeda and 9-11, the Taliban asswipes in Afghanistan, the destabilization of Pakistan - this has all been documented by other people not as dimwitted as myself. We haven't changed our core policies in 30 years.
malaise
(267,823 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)to lull the gullible into support or at least non-opposition to our policies, and that part is not clueless, it is rather effective. The cluelessness to which you refer is a deeper more developed cluelessness, one based on decades of self delusion, a misunderstanding of the historical role of Persia as a world or regional power since the collapse of the Roman Empire, and a vastly misguided unwillingness to tell the Saud gangsters to fuck off.
malaise
(267,823 posts)Igel
(35,197 posts)That's rather a big assumption, to be honest.
Like the assumption that the ISIL fighters would kill anybody who submitted. It's a time-honored practice. You submit you're approved. As long as the hierarchy of submission is the divinely-sanctioned one.
At the same time, there's no dishonor in not fighting against a far superior foe or in a cause that isn't yours. The Iraqi troops did this en masse against the US in 2003. It's only when you have a chance at power and at winning that it's dishonorable to resist--or when the dishonor strikes closer to home (for example, your women-folk, your personal honor). But this was fighting for a government few feel close to, this was fighting for pay or to honor a state-imposed obligation.
You don't understand the culture and everything looks sideways and inside-out. Engdahl, by the way, is a Westerner and rather too fond of Occam's razor: You don't multiply entities beyond what is necessary (i.e., in solving a problem you have no more factors or variables than required). Some like to have as many entities involved as necessary to include their favorite variables, and multiply entities more than necessary. Others have the opposite affliction--the number of entities necessary for any problem always reduces to one, just their favorite. (Often, to be honest, the two look to be the same--there's really one Great Satan, so there's just one "entity" to take into account; but then they have as many other derivative, secondary entities as necessary to make this particular analysis so.)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)trained ISIL/ISIS/whateverthefucktheyarecallingthemselves fighters over the last two years as part of our efforts to destroy the Assad regime.
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)with cocaine and guns. Sit back and collect all that money. Self cleaning oven to them. Do you think they care about Shia over Sunni or vice versa? They want them to kill each other. There's more than Total Information Awareness going on. There is also "The Finite Project."
malaise
(267,823 posts)Yes
muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)Oil? He thinks it's not biological in origin, and will never run out. 'Peak oil' is a political scam.
Global warming? A "scare" from a "tiny elite" looking to gain world power.
The Arab Spring? A joint Bush/Obama production.
The man's a loony. But thanks for bringing his views to DU.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If it criticizes the US, it gets airtime.
Doesn't matter how much of a crock it is.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)they need to tamp down the propaganda because people are beginning to get suspicious.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)This one makes the birthers look sane
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)your leader and ultimate person in charge of your network is a war criminal, I guess you will grasp at anything.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)In Syria and Iraq are going well?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)and Iraq are going well?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)do with your post, but it most certainly is related to the op. It is a very straight forward question. Things going well with our foreign policies in Syria and Iraq?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)And that's what Putinrocks.com is claiming
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)But why is the suggestion that we trained ISIS militants as part of our efforts to destabilize Syria's Assad regime "psychotic", or more importantly, psychotic or not, why is it not quite likely?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Moreover--the claim being advanced isn't that this is a fustercluck born of foolish policies, it 's that this whole thing is a grand conspiracy orchestrated willfully by the USG.
In general, anyone advancing a simplistic analysis of Iraq/Syria and the larger Mideast is selling snake oil.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)or intentional. So are you going with "massive clusterfuck"?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Agence France Presse
Posted at June 16, 2012, 7:02am
Rupert Murdoch took part in an "over-crude" attempt by US Republicans to push Tony Blair into action before the invasion of Iraq, the former British prime minister's ex-media chief claimed Saturday.
Alastair Campbell said the News Corporation media baron warned Blair in a phone call of the dangers in delaying signing up to the March 19, 2003 invasion, as part of an attempt to speed up Britain joining the military campaign.
SNIP...
"Both TB and I felt it was prompted by Washington, and another example of their over-crude diplomacy. Murdoch was pushing all the Republican buttons, how the longer we waited the harder it got."
The following day he added: "TB felt the Murdoch call was odd, not very clever."
CONTINUED...
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/970894/shocking%3A_did_rupert_murdoch_push_tony_blair_on_iraq_war/
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)A Billionaire who helped lie America into war.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)You are the one denigrating Russia's news media.
I pointed out the facts about America's Fox News.
Speaking of America's conservative news media, what do you think about the Lewis Powell Memorandum, stevenleser?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Other than being a tu quoque argument.
I'm sure RT, whose owner also owns one of the largest aerospace defense conglomerates in the world, would never lie to advance Russian interests.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)I pointed out that Fox News, as a news organization, is another example of corrupt leadership.
Now that you're on the phone, what do you think of the Lewis Powell memorandum?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Fox News does have corrupt leadership.
How exactly does that have any bearing on RT?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)There are other reasons, too.
roamer65
(36,739 posts)I really believe this is one of Bandar Bush's concoctions. CIA probably went along for the ride on it, since we are hostage to their oil.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Lookit this azzhole:
The Pitfalls of Peace
The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
Tyler Coswen
The New York Times, JUNE 13, 2014
The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.
An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.
The world just hasnt had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but todays casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.
Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nations longer-run prospects.
It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not todays entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.
War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.
SNIP...
Living in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big advantages that you dont get with 4 percent growth and many more war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but its something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be burst.
Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0
That got prime real estate in the pages of The New York Times.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
The US is utterly incompetent in the Middle East, and frankly this is just yet another example.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)I would not doubt it.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)God. This is too easy!
malaise
(267,823 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Next thing ya know, you will be telling me some former POTUS gave weapons to terrorist Iran!
malaise
(267,823 posts)You're cracking me up here
Rex
(65,616 posts)Or that Bush the Lesser praised the current dictator of Russia when he met him after looking into his soft brown puppy dog eyes...
I swear this stuff just writes itself!
KoKo
(84,711 posts)2nd hand Russian jets to target ISIL. The CIA training does make sense.
I thought the article was interesting read. So much information (reporting from different interest groups) flying around and we know some is disinfo...that it helps to read many different sources.
Those bawling about Russian propaganda forget the pre-Iraq invasion and occupation propaganda from the US government and media. Disinformation comes from everywhere and objective grown ups can sort it out.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)seem to be able to communicate a coherent thought on the subject of the mess in Iraq and Syria. My guess is that the lack of talking points that aren't just laughable is having an effect.
malaise
(267,823 posts)My guess is that the lack of talking points that aren't just laughable is having an effect.
---------------
It's like the lies are old and tired - all they evoke is laughter
Response to malaise (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Things are usually what they seem to be. This is a bunch of killers making huge territorial gains in the SUNNI TRIANGLE because the majority Shiites don't care to fight them in their house. Shocking, but that's life.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Ok, these killers, aka ISIS or ISIL are operating in both Syria and Iraq. They are one of the major military organizations in the forces opposed to the Assad regime. The US government is supporting that opposition, although allegedly not ISIS directly. ISIS has published photos of Sen. McCain meeting with ISIS leaders, perhaps he didn't know exactly who they were, perhaps we had no clue who we were supporting in Syria. It is in fact superficially obvious that we likely managed to arm and train the militants fighting in Iraq, intentionally or not , while trying to topple Assad in Syria.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)From what I've read, ISIS nearly got kicked out of Syria for trying to tell local groups how to do things. They still operate out of Syria to some extent, but they've mostly moved into Iraq now. Whether they received US support while in Syria, I can't say they did or didn't. Hell, the biggest support they ever received from the US was the invasion of Iraq. It gave them a place to hide after they got their asses handed to them in Jordan in 2002.
I don't subscribe to the orchestrated theory of events because I've seen precious little evidence in this life that any group of people is capable of perfect planning and execution outside of fiction. If the US has supported ISIS in the past, the odds are greatly in favor of that support having been unintentional. Unintentional support is also known by its more descriptive name, blowback.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Published on Friday, June 27, 2014 by Informed Comment
Is Russia Replacing US in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/06/27-1
by Juan Cole
U.S. President Barack Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad in 2009. (Photo: Spc. Kimberly Millett/Wikimedia Creative Commons) Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Thursday told BBC Arabic that he was buying used fighter jets from the Russian Federation and from Belorussia. He said it had been a huge mistake to depend on the US for arms purchases, since the US arms pipeline is extremely slow and F-16 fighter jets ordered some time ago still have not arrived.
Al-Maliki was likely also reacting to the attempt of US President Barack Obama to strong arm him into resigning from his office in favor of a national salvation government.
Al-Maliki is widely blamed for the debacle of the past few weeks, in which he has lost a third of his country to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Al-Malikis stubborn sectarianism and inability to work with Sunni Arabs pushed them over the edge.
Al-Malikis narrative is rather different. He maintains that his troops in the north and west lacked close air support because of American foot-dragging on weapons already paid for. Al-Maliki maintains that the jets can be in Iraq withing 3 days, and can be deployed in bombing raids on ISIS positions in the north.
Al-Maliki also portrays the idea of a unity government as anti-democratic, since it sets aside such issues as which party won the most seats.
Determined to stay as prime minister for another four years, al-Maliki is seeking to accomplish several things at once. He wants to do an end run around Obama so as to avoid succumbing to American pressure to resign. He wants to impress Iraqi parliamentarians with his external contacts such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, so that they might support a third term for him. And practically speaking he wants to adopt the Syrian Baaths model of dealing with ISIS, which is to bomb them intensively, both aerially and by artillery, even at the risk of extensively damaging the local urban environment and killing and making refugees of millions. That he is even talking about this strategy publicly is probably meant as a threat with which to menace Mosul.
Al-Maliki has changed geopolitical positions quite a lot in a decade. He had been bureau chief of the covert Dawa Party in Damascus in the 1980s and 1990s and formed a deep dislike of the Syrian regime. When he first became prime minister in 2006, al-Maliki blamed all the bombings and violence in Baghdad on the Syrian government. Then after the Syrian attempted revolution and accomplished civil war, al-Maliki switched around and began supporting Bashar al-Assad, in fear of ISIS moving back from conquests in Syria to Iraq (he was prescient).
Continued at.........
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/06/27-1
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)malaise
(267,823 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)At this point agree. It gets to be "Channeling Rumsfeld" when we get into this kind of stuff.
Rueful Laughter .....
or
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 27, 2014, 07:27 PM - Edit history (1)