Recent attacks in Iraq

[SpackleFrog]

you lot ...anglo saxon interventionists whether of the neo conservative or liberal interventionist stripe..created fucking ISIS. Armed, funded, trained, empowered and diplomatically covered for it. Claimed repeatedly they were only a tiny minority. Theyve overrun almost half a country for fucks sake. Their invasion of Iraq has been quicker than Bush and Blairs so far.

At least youre right on the point Bashar Al Assad wont do what the anglo saxons tell him. Uppitty natives can be like that sometimes. Its why youve all been itching to bomb him all this time. BTW he sent his bombers in after them long before the brits or yanks got round to addressing the dilemma of their frankenstein monster running amok in the wrong direction. As it was always bound too . First they create Al Qaeda and now they do it again with this shower of medeivalist shit.

so the Saudi state, sorry, kingdoms, didn't create isis?

I'm not sure either "anglo saxon interventionists" or the Saudi state deliberately created ISIS but I think this is important so can we come back to it? Apologies if its already been covered on the thread but I seem to remember the Obama administration providing some sort of resources to opposition in Syria which turned out to be, uh, ISIS. Am I way off base here?

 

[teqniq]

I'm not sure either "anglo saxon interventionists" or the Saudi state deliberately created ISIS but I think this is important so can we come back to it? Apologies if its already been covered on the thread but I seem to remember the Obama administration providing some sort of resources to opposition in Syria which turned out to be, uh, ISIS. Am I way off base here?

Close but no cigar

America's Allies Are Funding ISIS

 

[Casually Red]

The USA didn't green light the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Such a view mostly comes from an April Glaspie-Saddam Hussein transcript, a failure to understand the nature of diplomatic language, and the excessive focus on one or two sentences in the transcript as opposed to the broader meeting.

ok then, diplomatic language apparently failed to spell out the difference between we have no problem with you invading Kuwait and if you invade Kuwait we shall bomb the absolute living shit out of you and place you under crippling sanctions untill your state falls completely apart. .
The subtle, finely tuned nuances between the 2 positions may not have been picked up upon by the Iraqi delegation at the time.

 

[co-op]

ok then, diplomatic language apparently failed to spell out the difference between we have no problem with you invading Kuwait and if you invade Kuwait we shall bomb the absolute living shit out of you and place you under crippling sanctions untill your state falls completely apart. .
The subtle, finely tuned nuances between the 2 positions may not have been picked up upon by the Iraqi delegation at the time.

 

[Casually Red]

I'm not sure either "anglo saxon interventionists" or the Saudi state deliberately created ISIS but I think this is important so can we come back to it? Apologies if its already been covered on the thread but I seem to remember the Obama administration providing some sort of resources to opposition in Syria which turned out to be, uh, ISIS. Am I way off base here?

its not just that he was providing resources to them he was ennobling their cause and providing political cover for them. Rallying people to their flag by insisting the nature of that insurgency was very different from what it actually was. And not just Obama but McCain, Hague and other western leaders.

It seems certain at this point these guys were being trained by the US and possibly others in the use of the sophisticated weaponry and tactics theyve used to successfully seize territory in camps in Jordan and Turkey .

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/10/us-syria-crisis-rebels-usa-idUSBRE9290FI20130310

and heres an interesting Guardian article from last year quoting Hague directly in how the British in particular have been training the Syrian rebels in how to build up an alternative rebel state within areas theyve captured from Government control. An idea ISIS seem to have found particularly attractive, whether in Iraq or Syria. A read through that and you can see how this thing built up.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/08/west-training-syrian-rebels-jordan

Earlier this week, the US secretary of state, John Kerry, said Washington was now confident that arms supplies to the rebels would not be diverted to extremists. "There is a very clear ability now in the Syrian opposition to make certain that what goes to the moderate, legitimate opposition is, in fact, getting to them, and the indication is that they are increasing their pressure as a result of that," he said.

so the western public was being spun that bullshit when the reality on the ground was

http://news.antiwar.com/2013/12/11/routed-by-islamists-pro-us-rebel-commander-flees-syria/



and this appears to be at least one of the views coming from the Maliki camp as regards latest developments

http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/source-besieged-iraq-sees-obama-as-jihad-accomplice/

 

[elbows]

ok then, diplomatic language apparently failed to spell out the difference between we have no problem with you invading Kuwait and if you invade Kuwait we shall bomb the absolute living shit out of you and place you under crippling sanctions untill your state falls completely apart. .
The subtle, finely tuned nuances between the 2 positions may not have been picked up upon by the Iraqi delegation at the time.

She never said they had no problem with him invading Kuwait. Rather she used standard diplomatic lines about disputes between nations, and it sounds like Saddam also fibbed about opportunities to resolve the crisis peacefully.

The wikipedia entry for her covers an array of slightly differing views on her performance and what message was received by both sides in a fair amount of detail, so I won't bother going into the detail myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

 

[Casually Red]

She never said they had no problem with him invading Kuwait. Rather she used standard diplomatic lines about disputes between nations, and it sounds like Saddam also fibbed about opportunities to resolve the crisis peacefully.

The wikipedia entry for her covers an array of slightly differing views on her performance and what message was received by both sides in a fair amount of detail, so I won't bother going into the detail myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

righto, youve posted a wikipedia entry with various US officials claiming it would be unthinkable due to diplomatic protocol to even mildly warn Saddam Hussein against invading Kuwait or warn it might at least damage Iraqi US relations ,while hed been massing his troops on its borders and was well known to be extremely pissed off with them over a long line of issues.
When for the past 6 months the United States have been loudly warning Russia not to even think of invading Ukraine, warning of dreadful consequences, and screaming about troop movements on its borders. While implementing a global sanctions regime against Russia despite there not even being troops amassed and no actual invasion .Your theory ...and their lame excuses, simply dont hold even a drip of water im afraid.
It concludes with the assertion Iraq was given the green light but the US somehow never meant that to happen. Because apparently it was regarded as a bit rude to intimate you might have a bit of a problem with Kuwait being invaded.

 

[elbows]

You can't compare the meeting of one diplomat on one occasion with the sort of warnings the US has publicly made over months, after Russia had already gone and taken Crimea.

Your version of reality also concedes a point Glaspie made in her defence, that Saddam must have been thick to believe the US wouldn't have a problem with an invasion of Kuwait.

I know there is no chance of you buying into my view on this stuff, but you could at least go as far as to concede that longer transcripts of that meeting clearly show that its stretching it much too far to say the US gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait. At the very most the impression might have been given that he wouldn't get his ass kicked by the USA for invading Kuwait to the extent that actually happened, but you can't seriously read the fuller transcripts and be left with the impression that the US would be happy to see him invade Kuwait. Let alone the existing knowledge he and others in his regime must have possessed regarding the USAs relationships with other powers in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, and the implications.

 

[Belushi]

American Marines and Special Forces on Mount Sinjar http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/13/us-ground-troops-direct-role-evacuate-yazidis-iraq

 

[weltweit]

American Marines and Special Forces on Mount Sinjar http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/13/us-ground-troops-direct-role-evacuate-yazidis-iraq

So it seems some British special forces might be there as well, I hope they can save a lot of people.

 

[quiquaquo]

Like they did ìn the Gulf Wars?

 

[weltweit]

Like they did ìn the Gulf Wars?

I wasn't making any comment on the Gulf Wars.

To my way of thinking, the current situation is what we need special forces for.

 

[ska invita]

From Vice News, worth a look

https://news.vice.com/video/the-islamic-state-part-1

all 5 parts of this are now uploaded - pretty amazing inside footage with IS approval - obviously they recognise the propaganda benefits

 

[weltweit]

all 5 parts of this are now uploaded - pretty amazing inside footage with IS approval - obviously they recognise the propaganda benefits

I think I have seen enough beheadings for a while thanks ..

 

[ska invita]

I think I have seen enough beheadings for a while thanks ..

mainly it looks at the way they enrol children, run courts, prisons, patrol neighbourhoods "encouraging" shariah, redistributing money through shariah practices, etc - its kind of the social side of the IS ... though yes there are a few heads on spikes and crucifixions ... its an important watch i think as it really gives an impression of what life in the Islamic State is like, and the impression from the films is that they're looking pretty embedded, physically and culturally, in their strongholds. obviously lots to read between the lines in it

 

[hipipol]

all 5 parts of this are now uploaded - pretty amazing inside footage with IS approval - obviously they recognise the propaganda benefits

Yes. it should reach the headcases they require in order to pursue their psycho dreams
This is not Islam, this is butchery and despotism with a modern marketing dept

 

[Casually Red]

mainly it looks at the way they enrol children, run courts, prisons, patrol neighbourhoods "encouraging" shariah, redistributing money through shariah practices, etc - its kind of the social side of the IS ... though yes there are a few heads on spikes and crucifixions ... its an important watch i think as it really gives an impression of what life in the Islamic State is like, and the impression from the films is that they're looking pretty embedded, physically and culturally, in their strongholds. obviously lots to read between the lines in it

it was precisely the importance of this aspect..the civil society, policing , patrols, functioning alternative institutions and the embedding thereof that was being taught by the British advisors in Jordan. Looks like they took it to heart and its paid off handsomely for them. Theyre even advertising honeymoon tours in the caliphate for newly weds.

Amazing to think if Obama, Cameron and Hollande had had their way these chaps could well be in charge of Damascus today instead.

One things for sure though. These scumbags are shaping up to be a permanent feature in the region.

 

[ska invita]

One things for sure though. These scumbags are shaping up to be a permanent feature in the region.

yes, thats the one big impression it left me with - no strategic bombing is going to shift them...seems like theres not just a power vacuum in the area, theres a political vacuum, in the ideological sense, and some old skool defiant Islam can fit in there quite neatly. They're particularly going for the young, impressionable, hurt and vulnerable - everyone involved seems under 30...those who are older and wiser are wary but careful to keep their mouths shut for fear of death.

 

[weltweit]

mainly it looks at the way they enrol children, run courts, prisons, patrol neighbourhoods "encouraging" shariah, redistributing money through shariah practices, etc - its kind of the social side of the IS ... though yes there are a few heads on spikes and crucifixions ... its an important watch i think as it really gives an impression of what life in the Islamic State is like, and the impression from the films is that they're looking pretty embedded, physically and culturally, in their strongholds. obviously lots to read between the lines in it

Not many women in their videos!

 

[ska invita]

Not many women in their videos!

none. its heartbreaking what is happening.

 

[Casually Red]

yes, thats the one big impression it left me with - no strategic bombing is going to shift them...seems like theres not just a power vacuum in the area, theres a political vacuum, in the ideological sense, and some old skool defiant Islam can fit in there quite neatly. They're particularly going for the young, impressionable, hurt and vulnerable - everyone involved seems under 30...those who are older and wiser are wary but careful to keep their mouths shut for fear of death.

and theyve got oil now too . Absolutely shit loads of it. And control of the immediate regions water supply . They can either cause a massive drought or a massive flood now whenever they feel like it. And by embedding themselves among the population they cant be shifted by airstrikes, and airstrikes will inevitably hit the locals...and on it goes. At best they can only be contained militarily. And theyll probably be happy enough to consolidate and hold onto what theyve got in Iraq,the Sunni heartlandks are what they really want. I get the feeling their advance has an element of chancing their arm about it, just seeing how far they can go till their advance is blunted. I doubt theyll be stupid enough to overstretch or bite off more than they can chew.

The only way they can effectively be combatted is ideologically first and foremost. Thats why I believe theyve had a lot less success in Syria as opposed to Iraq despite Syria having a Sunni majority. The sectarian non nationalist regime in Iraq pretty much has no ideological defence against them worth speaking of. Different story in Syria.

 

[Humberto]

Is this similar in anyway to the Taliban? By which I mean they fill a vacuum and will be irradicable in terms of the "democracy for all as long as you open all your markets and public resources to American exploitation" type deal?

 

[ska invita]

.

 

[ska invita]

As to whether the UK will get more deeply involved, my impression is Cameron wont be giving any signs of pushing for it (even if some more covert activity happens) as it would really mess with his election plans - the plan being dont let the housing bubble pop, dont rock the boat and dont look to be involved in starting a war.

 

[Dillinger4]

This will be an invasion by every other name. The USUK will act as though they are extremely reluctant at every single step.

The rhetoric deployed against ISIS / Islamic State is making me suspicious. Every single time they are mentioned by a politician on the news, they are declared 'evil' (or similar) in the same breath.

I am not disputing that they are bad. But evil is something else, it is a word that almost always implies that something must be done about it. It is the justification for further intervention.

This is how war will unfold now. They can't get away with open aggression after George W Bush. So now it is reluctance all the way, masking their real intentions.

 

[ska invita]

i agree with the reading of it, but I really think Cameron is genuinely reluctant, its not just a false pretense...i would be hugely surprised if ground troops are committed

 

[butchersapron]

This will be an invasion by every other name. The USUK will act as though they are extremely reluctant at every single step.

The rhetoric deployed against ISIS / Islamic State is making me suspicious. Every single time they are mentioned by a politician on the news, they are declared 'evil' (or similar) in the same breath.

I am not disputing that they are bad. But evil is something else, it is a word that almost always implies that something must be done about it. It is the justification for further intervention.

This is how war will unfold now. They can't get away with open aggression after George W Bush. So now it is reluctance all the way, masking their real intentions.

I think that's a misreading, the last thing they want is proper involved war - they were happy with attempting to direct things from the back seat in the Kurdish autonomous zone until it came to their door. They'll be happy to pay again to turn the tribes and other temporary ISIS allies against them the same as during the awakening - and as soon as the national govt is firmly established and the iraqi army re-organised. That means a holding pattern of containing airstrikes and small arms supplies to one of the kurd groups to edge back ground.

 

[Dillinger4]

I think that's a misreading, the last thing they want is proper involved war - they were happy with attempting to direct things from the back seat in the Kurdish autonomous zone until it came to their door. They'll be happy to pay again to turn the tribes and other temporary ISIS allies against them the same as during the awakening - and as soon as the national govt is firmly established and the iraqi army re-organised. That means a holding pattern of airstrikes and small arms supplies to one of the kurd groups.

I don't think they want a full scale war. The point I was making is that they are creating their own opportunity to act however they want, all with the facade that they didn't want to but they have to, because of 'evil'.

It really makes me deeply suspicious to hear powerful people talk of 'evil'. 'Evil' implies something must be done about it.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't think they want a full scale war. The point I was making is that they are creating their own opportunity to act however they want, all with the facade that they didn't want to but they have to, because of 'evil'.

It really makes me deeply suspicious to hear powerful people talk of 'evil'.

As it should, among many other things. But your reading was they were creating an opp/cover to act because they have already decided to act wasn't it? That they have decided to or want to act is what i'm questioning - not the idea that states try to provide some rationale (moral, economic whatever) for their actions.

 

[Dillinger4]

As it should, among many other things. But your reading was they were creating an opp/cover to act because they have already decided to act wasn't it?

Not exactly. More that they are creating the opportunity to act in any way they want in the future by conjuring up an enemy. And further, that it will be all be done with a facade of complete reluctance.