"Western Training" And The Fight Against The Islamic State
"Training" foreign troops seems to be some magic solution for various foreign policy problems. "Training" a new Iraqi army against the Islamic State is the latest of such a hoped for miracles. But all recent "western training" has been more problematic than successful.
The various foreign troops trained at the infamous U.S. Army School of the Americas, turned out to be capable, but only as torturers and death squads:
Observers point out that School alumni include: 48 out of 69 Salvadoran military members cited in the U.N. Truth Commission's report on El Salvador for involvement in human rights violations (including 19 of 27 military members implicated in the 1989 murder of six Jesuit priests), and more than 100 Colombian military officers alleged to be responsible for human rights violations by a 1992 report issued by several human rights organizations. Press reports have also alleged that school graduates have included several Peruvian military officers linked to the July 1992 killings of nine students and a professor from La Cantuta University, and included several Honduran officers linked to a clandestine military force known as Battalion 316 responsible for disappearances in the early 1980s. Critics of the School maintain that soldiers who are chosen to attend are not properly screened, with the result that some students and instructors have attended the School after being implicated in human rights violations.
Foreign officers trained over the last decade in various military "anti-terrorism" programs seem somewhat prone to coup against their government:
The army officer who has seized power in Burkina Faso amid popular protests in the West African country was twice selected to attend counterterrorism training programs sponsored by the U.S. government, U.S. military officials said.
...
Although the training he received was relatively brief, Zida’s experience carries echoes of other African military officers who went on to topple their governments after being selected by the U.S. government for professional military education courses.In March 2012, an army captain in Mali who had attended a half-dozen military training courses in the United States led a coup that deposed his democratically-elected government.
The United Kingdom offered to train 2,000 Libyan "soldiers" to clean up the anarchy its attack on Libya created. In a first tranche 325 were recently selected, "vetted" and flown to the UK for some basic infantry training. Some 90 of them decided they did not want to be soldiers and asked to be flown home. Additionally some 20 claimed asylum. The rest tried to have some fun. Two stole bicycles, rode to Cambridge and sexually assaulted several women. Some others raped a male person. The training program has been abandoned and the rest of these "vetted" and "trained" gang was send home to presumably reenforce the anarchy there.
The U.S. trained the Iraqi army over several years and at a cost of billions of dollars. As soon as that army was assaulted it fell apart. Four divisions fled when attacked by rather minor forces of the Islamic State.
But do not despair. The U.S. has found the perfect way to solve the Islamic State problem in Iraq. It will now simply train a few new divisions and those freshly trained folks will then surely be able to defeat and destroy the Islamic State.
Iraqi security forces, backed by American-led air power and hundreds of advisers, are planning to mount a major spring offensive against Islamic State fighters who have poured into the country from Syria, a campaign that is likely to face an array of logistical and political challenges.
...
United States officials say that the initial force they are planning to advise consists of only nine Iraqi brigades and three similar Kurdish pesh merga units — roughly 24,000 troops.The counterattack plan calls for at least doubling that force by adding three divisions, each of which could range from 8,000 to 12,000 troops.
The United States is relying on allies to augment American trainers. Australia, Canada and Norway have committed several hundred special forces to one or more of the training or advisory missions, a senior United States military official said.
For the expected quality of that farce and its training just see above.
The Islamic State is currently ruling over some 4 to 6 million people. It is recruiting and drafting among these to increase the size of its own army. How many able young men of fighting age can be generated from a millions strong, traditionally child rich population? 100,000? 300,000? The Islamic State has capable trainers from the old Baathist Iraqi army and it uses a fighting style that mixes guerrilla tactics and conventional warfare. It has captured enough weapons and ammunition to fit out several tens of thousands soldiers.
Even with air support the few forces the U.S. plans to train will be mince meat as soon as they will try to enter areas the Islamic State wants to hold.
The "western" military model is simply not fitting to the kind of conflicts encountered in other parts of the world. The mentalities, traditions, ideological incentives and education levels are much different.
"The west" still feels superior to "the rest" because it has, in the past, won so many colonial wars. But as Samuel Huntington once remarked:
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.
It was an advantage in technology that allowed "western" forces to win in colonial wars. But at least in ground wars both sides now basically use the same technology and similar weapons. There is no longer a technical advantage and some basic "training" does not help much to escape from an incoming stream of hot machine gun bullets. The U.S. war of independence is a good example for this. While the British army still could win in other colonial wars a colonial fight against an enemy at a similar technical level but with higher motivation ended in defeat.
Any force that is supposed to grind down the Islamic State and its army needs an ideological motivation and will to fight that is at least equal to the one of the Islamic State fighters. As an attacking force it will also needs superior numbers. The U.S. and other "western" armies are unable to create such a force in Iraq. The only entities which can do such on short notice are the Iranian revolutionary guard and Hizbullah. Any efforts of "training" a new force against the Islamic State that does not involve those will be in vane.
The recent history of "western training" of foreign forces is a history of failures and defeat. It is stupid to assume that this time will be different. If the U.S. wants to defeat the Islamic State it will have to make nice with its other "enemies" and it will have to let them lead the training and the fighting. Anything else will likely fail and end up in a few decades with the embarrassing acceptance of a new state in the former territories of Iraq, Syria and whatever other country the Islamic State decides to slice apart.
Posted by b on November 4, 2014 at 20:15 UTC | Permalink
the same can be said for the uk... the uk and the usa together make it look like 2 countries, but in fact they are one large entity for 'the corporations'.. there is nothing and i mean nothing democratic about either of them.
Posted by: james | Nov 4 2014 20:23 utc | 2
The US and it's allies should not be "training" any fighters to combat ISIL It has been clearly shown throughout recent history that such endeavors usually end in tears for the civilians of proxy war conflict zones. The eradication of ISIL should and can be accomplished by the west supporting and fighting alongside Assad's forces and the destruction of ISIL could manifest fairly quickly. If the west wants to train some forces, they should be training Assad's forces in the protocols of joint military tactics and communication to combat ISIL strongholds and limit the possibilty of friendly fire situations.
Posted by: really | Nov 4 2014 20:29 utc | 3
This sort of training is really a ponsi scheme played out with ruined lives rather than investors
Posted by: bridger | Nov 4 2014 22:40 utc | 5
Great analysis, b at least until you made the assumption that Iranian forces would or could stop the conquest of the Islamic State. Irainian trained forces in Syria have been routed by the IS in every major battle they engaged even with air suport.
There is also a strong anti-Iran Shia trend in southern Iraq that limits the use of foreign forces in that conflict.
This push for "training" may be a PR ploy to insert much larger numbers of US and other Western troops into the conflict.
Posted by: Wayoutwest | Nov 4 2014 22:55 utc | 6
Wackedoutwest, who speaks of ISIL with all the boisterousness and hope with which an alumni might speak of his college team, strikes out again.
In Kobani, ISIL is still unable to achieve real success. IS has, in fact, never had success outside of areas that are already friendly to it. ISIL has been beaten repeatedly by the Iraqi Army. ISIL has in fact been rolled back in town after town, pushed back from its initial advances into friendly Sunni territory. The Syrian army has also posted gains against your favorite jihadists.
If it wasn't for western media and boosters such as yourself, ISIL would be seen for the gang of fakers they are. Instead you laughably appear day after day (to the detriment of your waning credibility) to tell us instead that they threaten not only Anbar province, but also Ankara and Tel Aviv.
ISIS is little more that a few thousand psychopaths with access to some Toyotas. If the US would order its satrapy's to get serious about cutting off all their aid, they would wither and die immediately. Sadly, the US - despite its holier than thou claims - is interested in prolonging the war indefinitely. Even if that takes allowing support for ISIL behind the scenes.
What a joke.
Posted by: guest77 | Nov 5 2014 0:19 utc | 7
The USA will soon have to choose. The only capable local armies to defeat ISIS are Turkey, Iran and the Syrian Army.
Turkey has been invited and is strongly against engaging its military. Iran has not been invited, is willing but prefers to abstain for political reasons. The Syrian army ( and Hezbollah) have not been invited but are doing the job with whatever means they have.
So here are the options the USA has to consider:
1) Call Iran for direct military help and have Saudi Arabia and all Sunnis countries infuriated
2) Discreetly help and allow the Syrian Army to continue attacking ISIS in exchange for looking the other way as the Syrian rebels that are heavily polluted by Al Qaeda ideology are been destroyed.
3) Continue the ridiculous fairy tale of betting exclusively on trained 'vetted' Sunnis rebels to destroy other Sunnis.
My opinion is that the USA is quite happy for now to have the Syrian army, the Hezbollah and the Kurds do the dirty job and they won't punish the Syrian army when they attack the rebels. It certainly preferable than to call the Iranians as it will cause a trauma for the Sunni countries.
As for 'vetting' rebels, a token of the non-islamist 'moderate' Syrian rebels is been "tested" in Kobani fighting along the Kurds to evaluate on two criteria:
a) How secular, 'moderate" and dedicated they are and if they will so remain if Kobani is saved.
b) If they show readiness to shelve their initial goal of toppling Bashar al Assad to after ISIS is totally destroyed in Syria.
If it validates, the USA hopes to build up on this small group to create at a second stage a moderate/secular power sufficient to force the Syrian government to budge into negotiation of power sharing.
Yet the rebels who are moderate/secular are a small minority. Will the USA then exclude the Islamists from sharing power in Syria as is happening in Egypt and Tunisia?
We're talking about years from now...
Posted by: Virgile | Nov 5 2014 0:23 utc | 8
"There is also a strong anti-Iran Shia trend in southern Iraq that limits the use of foreign forces in that conflict."
This kind of ridiculous, sectarian garbage is what WoW always deals in. And as often as not, they are utterly empty flights of fancy - After telling us one day his surprise that "the Arabs" would allow "the Persians" to "dominate" them in Southern Iraq, he now comes to claim that "there are strong anti-Iran trend" in Southern Iraq. As someone here said the other day, he seems to just pick something out of thin air and "runs it up the flagpole waiting to see if anyone salutes".
But who buys this stuff?
The fact is that the ties between Iran and Iraq are very, very strong. Not based on "domination" but based on hundreds of years of religious ties and the recent, extremely critical political support. Iran is the #1 power in Iraq, and the #1 ally of the Iraqi state. To claim otherwise is preposterous. And especially to claim so in Southern Iraq!
Wayoutwest's endless anti-Iran/anti-Russia concern trolling really is tiresome. And entirely, obviously, without any merit.
Posted by: guest77 | Nov 5 2014 0:36 utc | 9
Training more troops ... the US spent billions training and arming ISIS ... the takfiris in Libya, the Nazis in Ukraine ...
It the US wanted to defeat ISIS all it would take would be a conference call to the KSA, Qatar and the rest of the Gulf despots to close the spigot of funding and weapons ... the Imperial Voentorg ... to ISIS.
The US built ISIS ,.. and every other terrorist-letter-group operating in Iraq-Syria. The US does not care which of the groups continues the devastation and destruction of the region, as long as the devastation and destruction of the region continues. If ISIS becomes problematic ... attacks US interests ... THEN it will be cut-off and replaced by another terrorist-letter-group in one NY/Tel Aviv/Riyadh minute, made up of the same, sorry victims as ISIS, who think they are working against the Empire rather than for it.
As long as the toll is taken on the TIAAs (those who assert there is an alternative to ' becoming a more privatized, deindustrialized, recolonized, beggar-poor [region] of cheap labor and rich resources available at bargain prices, defenseless against capital penetration, so divided that it [can] never reunite, so battered that it would never rise again ') the TINAs (those who assert there is no alternative) will keep the money and arms rolling in.
How many people have Bush/Obama murdered in Syria-Iraq by now? Two million? Three million?
There is no doubt who the Number One terrorist ... the greatest purveyor of violence ... is on this planet.
'Training" foreign troops seems to be some magic solution for various foreign policy problems.'
the reason to use foreign troops is so as not to use your own, which can be politically dangerous esp as electtion time. British empire used Gurkhas in asia, US prefers to use alqaeda
Posted by: brian | Nov 5 2014 1:11 utc | 11
'Irainian trained forces in Syria have been routed by the IS in every major battle they engaged even with air suport.
There is also a strong anti-Iran Shia trend in southern Iraq that limits the use of foreign forces in that conflict.
This push for "training" may be a PR ploy to insert much larger numbers of US and other Western troops into the conflict.
Posted by: Wayoutwest | Nov 4, 2014 5:55:22 PM | 6
iranian trained? yes we know youre anti iran, WooWoo
Posted by: brian | Nov 5 2014 1:12 utc | 12
I agree with the post, in that training foreign forces is fraught with impotence and un-vetted crazies, but are we really meant to believe that billions of dollars cannot buy a couple battalions willing to fight among a citizenry of fathers in dire need of paid employment?
What would we see if we could audit every dollar spent? I would love an account of what actually takes place on the ground from either a trainer, or a trainee. Someone who sees the money trail. I sense that money is allocated, and then the smallest fraction of that total is distributed such that the appearance of training is taking place. In essence, this has to be a fraud that is enriching people not in the spirit of Blackwater; more so redirected payments to something, or some group of people, that are much more murky.
I don't doubt that in the past we really did raise forces abroad, but when you combine the hollowness of our current government with the total lack of effectiveness from the afghan and iraqi forces we have spent unfathomable amounts of money on, it seems like an illusion.
Posted by: IhaveLittleToAdd | Nov 5 2014 1:22 utc | 13
Don't worry. Doling out US weapons and arming all those rebels/insurgents certainly helps to increase arms sales, jacking up profits. At least someone benefits.
Posted by: Willy2 | Nov 5 2014 1:40 utc | 14
presumably they have quality control indices, have swallowed the whole managerial bureaucratize in search of normalizing abusive behavior against populations
pounds of explosives over the heads of civilians is a brilliant normalizing device for the technological deliverers of death
Posted by: Jay M | Nov 5 2014 1:42 utc | 15
Life in Raqqa by an anti-IS syrian living there
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/11/raqqa-syria-islamic-state-activists-threatened.html#
Posted by: brian | Nov 5 2014 2:30 utc | 16
The classic case of training foreign troops, for some of us that go back a ways, is General Petraeus in Iraq. from the files--
General Petraeus first brown-nosed his way into the national spotlight as a major general.
Petraeus headed the Iraq Security Transition Command Jun 2004--Sep 2005. After he had been in charge of training the Iraqi Army for three months, he famously wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post which was published in September 2004.
During a crucial time in the presidential campaign, when Kerry said Iraq was headed south, Petraeus's piece was a rosy prediction of things to come. “Six battalions of the Iraqi regular army and the Iraqi Intervention Force are now conducting operations. . .Within the next 60 days, six more regular army and six additional Intervention Force battalions will become operational. . . Nine more regular army battalions will complete training in January”
Nope.
Sep 2005, a year later –Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who oversees U.S. forces in Iraq, said there are fewer Iraqi battalions at “Level 1 readiness than there were a few months ago. . . The number of Iraqi army battalions that can fight insurgents without U.S. and coalition help has dropped from three to one, top U.S. generals told Congress yesterday.
From 21 battalions to one. Quite a drop.
Of course Petraeus bettered Casey when he later replaced Casey and then moved up another notch to CENTCOM and then ISAF, proving that truth has no relevance in warfare, and may even be detrimental. Now Casey has had the last laugh.
@17 Even during this GOP resurgence (more accurately, Democratic numbers are tanking), no one has been uttering Petreus' name. His name was knocked about even after his affair, but even the Republicans have probably grasped covering his "training" of the Iraqi army will be difficult.
Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Nov 5 2014 3:24 utc | 18
"The U.S. trained the Iraqi army over several years and at a cost of billions of dollars. As soon as that army was assaulted it fell apart. Four divisions fled when attacked by rather minor forces of the Islamic State."
25 BILLION USD , that "training" cost.. and whatever lies the imperialist overclass will hand you about KSA or the other oil sheikdoms "footing the bill", its nonsense. The Saudis don't pay for American foreign policy gambit even though they and Israel are apparently the sole beneficiaries.. Israel kicking in any of that money ? LOLOLOLLOLOLOLL!!!!!!!!! Israel COLLECTS billions of dollars per annum from the US in gift money. No, US citizens are paying for this and its not at all clear that 25 billion figure included anything but the actual training. The weapons, uniforms, GPS and communications equiptment, weapons vehicles and everything they got free, were abandoned to the forces the US claims to be fighting
Posted by: nomas | Nov 5 2014 4:16 utc | 19
If ISIS is the existential threat to western interests that it's being cracked up to be, then let the US, the UK, and France reinstitute military conscription, raise an army of at least 500,000, and go all in. No reason to fool around with all the fly by night proxies.
On a related matter, what's Israel doing around the Golan now? A few weeks ago, it was reported here that they were creating a "safe" corridor on the immediate Syria/Israeli border to facilitate jihadi movement to the north. Is that still going on?
Posted by: sleepy | Nov 5 2014 5:22 utc | 20
I appreciate this Brief History of 'Western Training' as a useful first step in helping confused observers to learn to distinguish hype from the Ugly Truth.
However, it will be difficult for anyone to persuade me that ISIS is worth taking seriously until he/she first provides a believable explanation for the (apparent) fact that ISIS, if it was populated by "Israeli Extremists", would behave in much the same way as the ISIS we're told to believe is populated by Muslim Extremists.
The whole idea of an "Islamic" fighting force which (we are told) oppresses arabs, the way "Israel" is famous for doing, does not add up.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 5 2014 5:48 utc | 21
@10 jfl.. nice post and one i'm in full agreement with. thanks.
Posted by: james | Nov 5 2014 6:24 utc | 22
"...If ISIS is the existential threat to western interests that it's being cracked up to be, then let the US, the UK, and France reinstitute military conscription, raise an army of at least 500,000, and go all in. No reason to fool around with all the fly by night proxies...."
Posted by: sleepy | Nov 5, 2014 12:22:33 AM | 20
Yeah that is a good question and one I have been kicking around in the gray matter. I think the primary reason was mentioned by another poster in this thread which is the profit motive. The longer the war the more ordinance and supplies that need to be replaced. Weapons do have shelf lives and what better way to dispose of the old inventory, manufacture new ordinance(at inflated prices of course) and restock the shelves for the next proxy conflict. I bet if we had access to the expiration dates of some of that ordinance those dates may coincide with the begin dates of certain conflicts. Yes if the west was serious about defeating ISIL they would either go all in like you say or ask for Iran's assistance and support Assad's efforts to beat back the ISIL SUV wheeling frankenstein.
Posted by: really | Nov 5 2014 7:49 utc | 23
"Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 4, 2014 10:06:19 PM | 17"
You left out the part where Petreaus actually provided weapons to the Iraqi "insurgent" forces so that they could fight the Iraqi armed forces he'd just been training. . . .
.......... to fight the "insurgent" forces he had just been arming .. . . . .
.......... to fight the Iraqi forces he'd just been training . . . .
And so on and soforth, etc etc, ad infinitum.
Nice recursive loop they got going there, no?
"Of course Petraeus bettered Casey when he later replaced Casey and then moved up another notch to CENTCOM and then ISAF, proving that truth has no relevance in warfare, and may even be detrimental. Now Casey has had the last laugh.
Another good cop/ bad cop clash of the titans WWF death match spectacular that had litle basis in reality. Youre getting good at those.
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 5 2014 9:23 utc | 25
"The recent history of "western training" of foreign forces is a history of failures and defeat. It is stupid to assume that this time will be different"
Are you going to stop promoting blowback now? Finally!
Because I left a comment yesterday that didn't get through explaining how "blowback" is a logical fallacy
And a term created by the CIA and suggesting all the blowback promoters should stop making life easier for the CIA.
"Begging the question, or assuming the answer, is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise"
That's blowback and I am quite certain the CIA was aware of that fact when they started using their term.
Using terms such as blowback over and over only makes clear how well one has been indoctrinated. Not how well one thinks or reasons.
Sadly, b, you are still promoting the state sanctioned conspiracy of ISIS as an independent group. it's not- It's a western created and backed pretext for NATO intervention- a rebrand of AQ
No, no, the most dangerous bunch of Salafists is not called "al Nusrah", but "al Musrah".
Those al Musrah guys are a hard-core fundamentalist splintergroup that broke away from a group called al Busrah, and they're much worse than those al Busrah guys, who were of course a hard-core splinter group that brokeaway from those al Nusrah guys who you heard so much about over the last 2 years, and who were of course much worse than those al qeada guys, from whom they were of course a hard-core fundamentalist breakaway splinter group
But anyway, they're all totally different from each other with no connection whatsoever.
Yessum
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 5 2014 13:31 utc | 27
At least O'Bomber went after that deadly dangerous alQ hard-core splinter breakaway "al Jissrah" group.
https://www.google.com/search/q=site%3Amoonofalabama.org+khorasan
Those guys were, like, sooooo much worse than the al Qeada moderates
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 5 2014 13:47 utc | 28
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/al-qaeda-khorasan-syria-bigger-threat-to-us-than-isis/
Worse than ISIS!!!
This morning we are learning of a new and growing terror threat coming out of Syria. It’s an Al Qaeda cell you probably never heard of. Nearly everything about them is classified. Bob Orr is in Washington with new information on a group some consider more dangerous than ISIS.
Questioning any of this spectacular presentation of ever increasing nonsensical hard-core fundamentalist slpintergroup mutation is of course racist
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 5 2014 13:52 utc | 29
@29
That new splinter cell of al qaeda should be called USG fear mongering.
Posted by: really | Nov 5 2014 14:51 utc | 30
For once they took a positive step, it didn't last long
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/114833/World/Region/Saudi-blames-Qaeda-for-antiShiite-attack,-sacks-mi.aspx
In another sign of tensions linked to the incident, Saudi Arabia's minister of culture and information was sacked after shutting down a television channel known for its anti-Shiite rhetoric.
Abdlaziz Khoja was dismissed by royal decree published by the official SPA news agency, hours after he announced the closure of a privately owned Sunni television channel.
Posted by: Mina | Nov 5 2014 15:01 utc | 31
@21 Hoarsewhisperer:
I agree and have been wondering that for a long time now. If ISIS really threatened important US allies (which they don't) then something concrete with tangible results would transpire. As it is, they only now threaten targets the AmeriKans and Israelis didn't like anyway, so we get to hear things like 'ISIS making gains despite US airstrikes...'
Here's a good idea, Wahhabi Takfirist terror whores who only kill other Muslims: Find a real name for your "Islamic State"....preferably in Arabic? Or better yet, Hebrew since you are so good at doing the Israeli Hebrew Klansmen's dirty work. Do the Jewish doctors on the Golan who help your injured jihadists speak Arabic?
Islamic State sounds like something some lazy Hollywood writer came up with and it reminds one of "homegrown" foreign anti-gov't. protests where everyone is carrying signs and chanting in English.
This is some dog and pony show and I would LOVE to see the whole thing split wide open in spectacular failure for the Yankee Reich. Skumbag frauds of the highest order ruining lives all over the place.
Posted by: Farfulngstar | Nov 5 2014 15:04 utc | 32
Sleepy@20
A Western Crusade with invading forces is exactly what the Islamic State wants because it will inflame the whole ME and bring millions into the conflict on their side.
There is also the possibility of mass revolt in the West if such an insane Crusade is forced upon the already angry public.
Israel sees Hezbollah as their main threat from the north and will continue to do strange things to weaken or disrupt their positions on its border.
Posted by: Wayoutwest | Nov 5 2014 15:13 utc | 33
7;Are those psychopaths born or made that way?I vote the latter for the majority,as 60 plus years of abuse does that to people.
At AW today,they had a story how Iran accused Israel of creating Isus.Wouldn't surprise me in the least that they colluded with US to divide and conquer.
OT;anyone have a figure on the % of voters who turned out yesterday in America?
Posted by: dahoit | Nov 5 2014 15:39 utc | 34
Training of foreign armies is completely useless. —See Iraq. It is a PR and money-making or scamming exercise, that is all.
The US turned Iraq into bad-lands, then some valiant new-style Iraqi soldiers are suppposed to show up to defend a puppet Gvmt? Please.
The US, in the shape of Booted Bremer, destroyed the economy of Iraq, through privatization (dozens of decrees, everything was up for grabs), with ‘purges’, Baath etc, firing several hundreds of thousands of ppl, putting paid to the past-state run structure. Second, with contracts for ‘recontruction’ that were rip-offs and led to a bubble in subcontracting, i.e. corruption, with at the end of the line, nothing achieved.
Privatization lead to regional rivalry, for everything, and in Iraq, the overlay of ‘ethnic’ / ‘regional’ differences matches with ressource assets. Saddam implemented re-distribution, almost exactly like that of the US and Swizerland, which kept the country together, but the US doesn’t want its own model exported. It wants the natives to die a slow death - no clean water, no health care, little electricity/energy to run biz, no local food, agri to be destroyed, schools, forget it, no way. The chaos is blamed on the inhabitants, sub-humans 'engaged' in religious/ethnic wars.
Why should any young man turn onto this agenda? They do it only to get some money for some time, to like say feed children, wives, family.
But if an opposition force gets together - there you go. IS.
Posted by: Noirette | Nov 5 2014 17:19 utc | 35
Whoooaaa... wait a minute... could somebody here please tell me what is soooooo bad about ISIS? I cant find any solid proof that they, as an organization, are any worse than any government or corporation currently operating successfully in the global scam... Sure, they butcher some "journalist" every once in a while, but when it comes to the bodycount, they got alot of catching up to do if they wanna compete globally. I get the whole thing of having a common enemy, but really...? These guys? Isnt there anything good about their operation? What exactly do they want? And how is that bad for the rest of the world...? Why the fuck are entire nations that wouldnt normally piss on each other if on fire, suddenly falling over each other to "neutralize" this gang of miscreants?
This whole shebang is a joke... well, maybe not if youre the one having your head chopped off, but put into perspective it really is rather farcical....
Anyhoo... Do you guys really believe ISIS are the bad guys?
Posted by: Dan | Nov 5 2014 18:48 utc | 36
Dan - what is sooooo bad about ISIS? Well if you have a hard-on for Arab thugs, criminals, dead-enders, drug addicts, thieves and murderers who want to pretend they are religious warriors, it's the 13th century, and who kill those who disagree with them, then I guess nothing. The pedophile Wahabbi paymasters think it's so cool. So retro. I don't see KKK Israel or Yehudia Arabia getting ready to bomb them, so obviously if they aren't all bad, they certainly are serving a purpose.
And look how they carry out the West's population reduction campaign. Easy to redraw lines in the sand if there's no people there in the way.
ISIS is an unwitting tool, where USSA cannot afford to put their own soldiers in because of domestic opposition, there's ISIS, doing what AmeriKa wants.
I think if ISIS decided to start killing Israelis and / or AmeriKans across the region you would change your tune. As for now, they are only offing other Muslims, so you're ok with it.
Posted by: Farflungstar | Nov 5 2014 19:40 utc | 37
@dan
Are you serious? You expect us to believe that Saudi backed religious extremists who kill christians and shia are the good guys? What are you smoking, it must be good.
Posted by: Massinissa | Nov 5 2014 21:41 utc | 38
With regards to ISIS the US is not in the same but in a similar position like it was in the late 90s vis a vis the Taliban.
The US neither directly created the Taliban nor armed or paid them, but it looked the other side when Pakistan (or major parts of Pakistans military and political establishment) not only tolerated the Taliban but actively supported them.
Pakistan facilitated the flow of arms and Wahhabi volunteers, for which Saudi Arabia paid the money and often provided the arms.
Details of this are to be read in the book by Ahmed Rashid about the Taliban.
Interestingly, Saudi Arabia was then and now an exporter and financer of jihadism and terrorism.
Turkey has taken the role of Pakistan and the worse version of the Taliban is IS.
The inglorious role of the US is that it does not put real pressure on Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
http://radioyaran.com/category/syria/
Posted by: KerKaraje | Nov 5 2014 22:57 utc | 39
Whoooaaa... wait a minute... could somebody here please tell me what is soooooo bad about ISIS? I cant find any solid proof that they, as an organization, are any worse than any government or corporation currently operating successfully in the global scam... Sure, they butcher some "journalist" every once in a while, but when it comes to the bodycount, they got alot of catching up to do if they wanna compete globally. I get the whole thing of having a common enemy, but really...? These guys? Isnt there anything good about their operation? What exactly do they want? And how is that bad for the rest of the world...? Why the fuck are entire nations that wouldnt normally piss on each other if on fire, suddenly falling over each other to "neutralize" this gang of miscreants?
This whole shebang is a joke... well, maybe not if youre the one having your head chopped off, but put into perspective it really is rather farcical....
Anyhoo... Do you guys really believe ISIS are the bad guys?
Posted by: Dan | Nov 5, 2014 1:48:38 PM | 36
how many govts of corporations have their members commit cannibalism,. rape, mass murder the latter on a daily basis?
donit try to angelise ISIS..its the worst of islam
Posted by: brian | Nov 5 2014 23:06 utc | 40
Do you guys really believe ISIS are the bad guys?
Posted by: Dan | Nov 5, 2014 1:48:38 PM | 36
syrians do:
broadly here is what ISIS alnusra and FSA have done in a few short years..of course with lots of help from certain regimes
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40131.htm
Posted by: brian | Nov 5 2014 23:08 utc | 41
Interestingly, Saudi Arabia was then and now an exporter and financer of jihadism and terrorism.Turkey has taken the role of Pakistan and the worse version of the Taliban is IS.The inglorious role of the US is that it does not put real pressure on Saudi Arabia and Turkey.http://radioyaran.com/category/syria/
Posted by: KerKaraje | Nov 5, 2014
Sigh . . . Nice though an outbreak of sanity is, no matter how brief, it never takes long for the morons to dust themselves off and regroup, does it?
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 5 2014 23:21 utc | 42
@Farflungstar
im not ameriKan, so i couldnt give two hoots if they decide to kill you guys or just keep killing their arab brothers. My point is that an organisation of retrobates takes an area the size of texas and fuck me, they dont even have a manifesto! at least none that i know about. for all i know they are the good guys... i mean what kind of thug or drug addict has enough money to ditch everything, catch a plane to turkey or jordan, buy a shitload of arms and start a shitfight in the desert? theres gotto be a certain amount of ideology behind this clusterfuck, right? what exactly do these guys want? and why arent their grievences being addressed? and whatever grievences those might be,chances are they are more legitimate than the ameriKans... i mean, theyre so upset that theyre prepared to die over the issue... nobody else feels that way, and thats why theyre winning. so far.... right?
@Massinissa
i can hardly believe that anybody killing anybody is a good thing. its terrible...
and i only smoke the good stuff....
Posted by: Dan | Nov 5 2014 23:30 utc | 43
Dan at least has a slightly original viewpoint
Totally retarded, mind you, but interestingly totally retarded.
Which is more than can be said for the Dons of MOA
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 5 2014 23:34 utc | 44
Note the difference: we have Nasrallah making clear that he is an honest, decent leader without a sectarian bone in his body, while at the same time, al Nursra is threatening to invade Lebanon and kill as many Shia as possible.
All while al Quds is under direct threat by the Israelis and a third Intifada appears to be brewing? These are the "holy warriors"? What a laugh.
These "Syrian Rebels" - "moderate", extremist, to ultra-extremist, to cannibal - are just so completely obviously tools of the imperialist powers. It would be impossible for it to be more obvious. Its as obvious as seeing that @44, Jerk McClown here, is the same pathetic goof back for another session.
Posted by: guest77 | Nov 6 2014 1:31 utc | 45
And of course, after the ordinary every day morons come the ideological morons
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 6 2014 1:37 utc | 46
These "Syrian Rebels" - "moderate", extremist, to ultra-extremist, to cannibal - are just so completely obviously tools of the imperialist powers. It would be impossible for it to be more obvious.
Posted by: guest77 | Nov 5, 2014 8:31:13 PM | 45
Yep that shit's so shopworn and obvious that even a gormless gimp like you gets it . . . . finally
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 6 2014 1:41 utc | 47
The Gimp @45 is in true Orwellian fashion, now trying to pretend that he has always believed in the fakeness of the US Syrian/ISIS narrative.
He'll even pretend, as oleaginously as his sort usually does, that he never ever held any other viewpoint
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 6 2014 1:53 utc | 48
@43- Dan, exactly. I've been like where's the manifesto? I've even been like good drugs and cash on the barrel head? sign me up dude..if it weren't for the senseless killing that is. Killing is certainly not a good thing. Why can't everyone stop killing people? Like just stop it okay, it's wrong and people are dying? Anywho thanks for your interesting thoughts which I tend to agree with.
Posted by: Hejiminy cricket | Nov 6 2014 2:28 utc | 49
@48- dude you're back! I love the way you take the piss out of these smarty pants. Seriously the world needs your wisdom? All hail the Oscar Wyld of flaming geopolitical nerd heads!
Posted by: Hejiminy cricket | Nov 6 2014 2:34 utc | 50
@7: "ISIS is little more that a few thousand psychopaths"
Thierry Meyssan, in How many jihadists are there in Syria and Iraq? says that Western-controlled agencies are systematically lying, under-reporting the number of IS terrorists.
The main source for Western reports is one Peter Neumann, who claims that 'Islamic State' is presently operating with around 5000 men, while the Security Council, depending on the same source, says that 15,000 people have come to fight for IS.
The Syrian Arab Army, whose claim Meyssan finds plausible, says that 250,000 foreign fighters have entered the area over the last two years.
The purpose of the lie is to maintain that this is a domestic uprising, notwithstanding Assad's 88.7% share of the vote.
This level of commitment is one of "we'll do our part." Such a responsible position; who could argue with it?
We are told that ISIS has no friends. They are threat to every nation in the region and beyond. Yet we need to train tens of thousands in addition to those already fighting ISIS to counter them?
We spent trillions of dollars on the WoT, with neocons demanding that "if you're not with us, you're against us". And we OWN the global financial system that can bring most nations their knees. But we can't/won't ensure that ISIS is isolated?
IF we go ahead with this plan as stated, I'd say the devil is in the details. Will we expose thousands of troops to an attack that could draw us in further? Will we train mostly Sunnis - how many might then defect to ISIS? Isolating this band of criminals seems much more effective than arming and training more soldiers.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 6 2014 5:44 utc | 52
@36 dan
You have a point. When it comes to body counts ISIL is eons behind the so dubbed civilized societies that are trying to destroy it. By the way I think those journalists were part of a fear mongering campaign. Why would someone who is about to be beheaded be so calm and collected even reading statements and such. One would think they would be dry heaving, grovelling and begging for their life. The do not appear to be drugged, so I am a wee bit suspicious of the "beheadings".
Posted by: really | Nov 6 2014 6:01 utc | 53
Wayoutwest @33
Well, for all the reasons you mentioned, I wasn't seriously proposing a 500,000 man western army plopped into Syria and Iraq to fight ISIS. I was following the "logic" of the west which publicly condemns ISIS as a threat to western interests. That "logic", if true which it isn't, would suggest an all out military force to deal with ISIS.
I still wonder, though, about the relationship between the Israelis who appear to support ISIS, and the US and the west which appear to not.
Posted by: sleepy | Nov 6 2014 7:13 utc | 54
Judging by the results 'western training' is the kiss of death on a military force. Has any such force ever won anything, anywhere?
Looking at the successes of Novarussia, then maybe "Russian Training" is the way to go...just saying...
Or Hezbollah training, or heck anybody else's training except western.
"You want some of our western military training"? "No thanks we've got a couple of guys who do a lot of computer war gaming from their basement at home that we prefer far more".
Posted by: Lisa Formally OldSkeptic | Nov 6 2014 7:17 utc | 55
Here's the latest info on the Afghan National Army, the tail end of a longer comment I made on another blog responding to a recent interview of a top US general currently in Afghanistan.
LT. GEN. ANDERSON: Yeah, the data -- the data I gave you, it was -- it was killed in action, 4,350 for 2013 and 4,634 for 2014. Those are -- those are killed in action. No, this is not sustainable. So the issue they're having between attrition, they're averaging around -- their goal is a 1.4 percent AWOL rate between the army and police. The army's gone down some. The police have gone up some.But the bottom line, their first priority right now is to get their recruiting back up and to -- you'll hear lots of talk about organizational restructure, the tashkils, make it to the -- which is their manning document, to get their manning document filled to their numbers. The police are about 89 percent and the army is about 81 percent fill.
So the ANA is suffering unsustainable casualty rates, recruiting is down, the AWOL rate is unmentionable, and the force is only 81% and dropping. This negates what the general said earlier:
Right up front, the Afghan national security forces are winning, and this is a hugely capable fighting force who have been holding their ground against the enemy.
Yet another Petraeus, lying his boots off.
Part of the dubious mainstream narrative:
Western-Trained Iraqi Soldiers, en masse, abandoned their vehicles, left the keys in the ignition, left their weapons on the front seat and ran away when they encountered ISIS.
Posted by: Fast Freddy | Nov 6 2014 14:45 utc | 57
@55 The NAF wants to be there and fought without pay in their homes. Many of the people who showed for the new Iraqi army wanted a pay check. Also, western militaries haven't engaged an enemy without air superiority since Korea. I doubt their training is designed with this in mind.
Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Nov 6 2014 15:05 utc | 58
Sleepy@54
The Islamic State has stated clearly that their long term goal is to march on Jerusalem amd liberate Palestine. I doubt Israel would support any group with those goals but they might approve their attacking other enemies of Israel such as Hezbollah.
The Iranians are pushing the propaganda abour Israeli and Saudi connections to the IS but this is for political reasons to deflect the blame for their failed Sunni suppression policies in Iraq which are a main cause of this uprising.
Posted by: Wayoutwest | Nov 6 2014 15:35 utc | 59
Sleepy@54
The Islamic State has stated clearly that their long term goal is to march on Jerusalem amd liberate Palestine.
Posted by: Wayoutwest | Nov 6, 2014 10:35:25 AM | 60
Sure they did - several times in fact - but words are cheap, and it's actions that count.
Their actions actually prove that they have no intention of doing anything other than attacking Muslims Christians, Alawites etc.
Judged on their actions alone it is clear, at least to any sane honest person, that ISIS are clearly intent on attacking everyone BUT Israelis.
Given the behaviour to date, one would have to be more than just a little bit retarded to believe ISIS statements referencing Israel
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 6 2014 16:22 utc | 60
Their actions actually prove that they have no intention of doing anything other than attacking Muslims Christians, Alawites etc.
Judged on their actions alone it is clear, at least to any sane honest person, that ISIS are clearly intent on attacking everyone BUT Israelis.
That's a very short-termist point of view. I think the seeds of an attack on Israel are there, from their slogans in Mosul: Baghdad! Jerusalem! Why should one be serious and the other not. Religious nutters tend to believe they say.
Never forget that Saladin took 20 years to get his coalition together for the battle of Hattin in 1187.
The Israelis could provoke a change of direction by ISIS tomorrow, by going ahead with their plan to convert the Haram al-Sharif to Jewish worship. OK, this time Netanyahu has held back, but he too has his religious nutters.
Posted by: Laguerre | Nov 6 2014 17:31 utc | 61
I subscribe to a newsletter about fighting in Iraq and Syria by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi. http://www.aymennjawad.org/ . The following is paraphrased from it from the last few days, concerning the Islamic State in Iraq.
In order to reduce the territorial holdings of Islamic State in Iraq on a substantial scale, and then in order to maintain those terrorities in a peaceful state against reincursions from the Islamic State, a fundamental prerequisite is a local Sunni Muslim force on the ground that can contest the Islamic State's control of Sunni majority areas of Iraq. In other words it is fundamentally not enough to deploy national Iraqi forces consisting predominantly of Shiites: Politically and militarily, a predominantly Sunni force is required to successfully hold Sunni areas against Islamic State.There are several small-scale local armed Sunni initiatives that have been established over the course of 2014 with the specific objective of combating the Islamic State. There are a larger number of other Sunni militant groups that have their own local support bases within the Sunni population, and it might be possible to persuade such militants to form a wider, co-ordinated initiative against the Islamic State. However, the main Sunni militant groups that might combat the Islamic State are generally committed to a path of 'revolution' in some form that cannot be reconciled to the present existing order in Iraq. There is a widespread belief among such groups of the need to overthrow the government in Baghdad. They do not merely seek reform within the system to obtain, for example, greater autonomy for majority Sunni provinces, or deletion of legislation items that have come out of Baghdad that have been unpopular among Sunnis. Such groups garnered more credibility over the past 12 months in light of the perceived failure of the political process for Iraq's Sunnis. What system should follow the wished-for overthrow is of course a defining difference between the different militant groups, in particular separating the Islamic State from other actors.... More details about these non-Islamic State Sunni militant groups in Iraq is at http://www.aymennjawad.org/15607/state-of-war-the-iraqi-sunni-actors-taking-on
The thing I invite you to take away from the above is that 'b' is going to be wrong in his prediction about consolidation of insurgent groups in Iraq and Syria. Of course, some consolidation has happened in favour of Islamic State, and I won't be surprised to see a little more. But 'b' is making much bigger and bolder and more hazardous and probably wrong forecast that "in a few month the Islamic State will be the only group fighting against the Syrian (and Iraqi) government." -- quoting him from 31 OCT 2014 at http://www.moonofalabama.org/2014/10/syria-pro-nusra-rebels-turn-anti-nusra-rebels-turn-dead.html#comments . The good thing about such a forecast is that in few months we'll be seeing who was wrong in their understanding of the thinking, and spirit, and organizational dynamics of these militant groups.
Posted by: Gubarovich Shabih | Nov 6 2014 17:33 utc | 62
re 62 The thing I invite you to take away from the above is that 'b' is going to be wrong in his prediction about consolidation of insurgent groups in Iraq and Syria. Of course, some consolidation has happened in favour of Islamic State, and I won't be surprised to see a little more
The Sunni groups who formed the basis of the Sahwa are currently extremely weak, and don't seem strong enough to resist ISIS. That's more or less what Tamimi says.
Posted by: Laguerre | Nov 6 2014 17:46 utc | 63
Your last paragraph shows that intelligent people can still be fools if they believe foolish things and ignore actual facts.
One fact is that the Islamic State cells are already active in Israel/Palestine and the black flag of Jihad has been seen flying there.
The head of the IDF has also spoken of the real threat to Israel from the IS and he may be retarded but he is also well informed.
If superior, intelligent people such as yourself believe poor quality Iranian propaganda I will continue to rely on lesser mortals for facts and knowledge about the ME.
Posted by: Wayoutwest | Nov 6 2014 17:46 utc | 64
The head of the IDF has also spoken of the real threat to Israel from the IS and he may be retarded but he is also well informed.#
And if there one thing that various IDF heads over the years have NOT been noted for, it's "honesty"
One fact is that the Islamic State cells are already active in Israel/Palestine and the black flag of Jihad has been seen flying there.
any idiot can fly a flag - it means little, and only a fool would take it for cast iron proof that Israel is under threat from ISIS. And here you are doing just that.
Also, since many people (not you obviously) have worked out that ISIS is a proxy of the Zio-US empire, the appearance of an ISIS flag in Palestine could just as easily be portrayed as proof of the flase-flag nature of ISIS
Your last paragraph shows that intelligent people can still be fools if they believe foolish things and ignore actual facts.
Oh you mean FACTs like the Empire and it's minions financing, training, arming and supplying most if not all of these obviously fake Jihadi groups? Facts like that?
Facts that you consistently completely ignore in your pompous ignorant rants on this subject?
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 6 2014 18:08 utc | 65
That's a very short-termist point of view. I think the seeds of an attack on Israel are there, from their slogans in Mosul: Baghdad! Jerusalem! Why should one be serious and the other not. Religious nutters tend to believe they say.
No - it's a completely accurate point of view.
And "Slogans"?
Slogans are just words. They mean nothing. Actions are what counts. And the Zionist-US proxies such as ISIS have taken no action whatsoever against Zionist Israel, nor would any sane person expect them to take any seriously threaten actions against the Zionist state since they are clearly US-Zionist proxies
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 6 2014 18:15 utc | 66
re 66 No - it's a completely accurate point of view.
No, it isn't. You haven't understood that ISIS are religious nutters completely out of control. Saudi, who claimed to control them (Bandar), lost control last year. I would doubt that even their supposed leaders, whoever they are, could stop them, if Israel (as they may well really do) took over the Haram al-Sharif and demolished the Dome of the Rock and the Aqsa Mosque. Desecration, at a minimum, is a very likely event. By the Israeli religious nutters.
Posted by: Laguerre | Nov 6 2014 20:22 utc | 67
re 66 No - it's a completely accurate point of view.
No, it isn't.
Yes it is.
You haven't understood that ISIS are religious nutters completely out of control.
No you don't understand that ISIS are simply doing what they are paid to do - create mayhem and kill a lot of NON-JEWISH people.
Saudi, who claimed to control them (Bandar), lost control last year.
Did they? And you know this to be a fact just how exactly?
I would doubt that even their supposed leaders, whoever they are, could stop them,
Your doubts are of no concern. First step to stopping them, if any of their owners wanted to do so, which they clearly don't, would be to stop arming, financing and training these goons. But their owners haven't done that, so your claim is just nonsense.
In fact their owners are now planning on training a whole new bunch of goons to arm finance and train to send over there.
So your ZioNazi-US Imperialist friends helped arm, train & finance "insurgent" forces so that they could fight the Iraqi Armed Forces your US Imperialist friends were training . . . .
.......... to fight the "insurgent" forces your US Imperialist friends have been arming .. . . . .
.......... to fight the Iraqi forces your US Imperialist friends have just been training . . . .
And now your US Imperialist friends are assembling yet more groups of "insurgent" Forces to fight the OTHER group of "insurgent" forces that the Empire claims is an enemy.
And people like you swallow all this bullshit and pretend this is some sort of "good" thing.
if Israel (as they may well really do) took over the Haram al-Sharif and demolished the Dome of the Rock and the Aqsa Mosque. Desecration, at a minimum, is a very likely event. By the Israeli religious nutters.
And this of course has absolutely nothing to do with ISIS. And anyway The ZioNazis already regularly invade the Dome of the Rock, and ISIS has done nothing despite all their moronic posturing. So your "predictions" as to what ISIS will do in the event of your hypothetical is just a lot of hot air
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 6 2014 20:45 utc | 68
Part of the dubious mainstream narrative:
Western-Trained Iraqi Soldiers, en masse, abandoned their vehicles, left the keys in the ignition, left their weapons on the front seat and ran away when they encountered ISIS.
Posted by: Fast Freddy | Nov 6, 2014 9:45:23 AM | 57
he who runs away today can live to run another day!
so part of their training was to run away!
Posted by: brian | Nov 6 2014 21:27 utc | 69
The Islamic State has stated clearly that their long term goal is to march on Jerusalem amd liberate Palestine. I doubt Israel would support any group with those goals but they might approve their attacking other enemies of Israel such as Hezbollah.
The Iranians are pushing the propaganda abour Israeli and Saudi connections to the IS but this is for political reasons to deflect the blame for their failed Sunni suppression policies in Iraq which are a main cause of this uprising.
Posted by: Wayoutwest | Nov 6, 2014 10:35:25 AM | 59
in the absense of Cold we have wacky wayout.....and like him his role is to lob grenades into the debate.
ISIS has no intention og marching on jerusalem, or theyd have done so by now...
the caise of Alqaeda in Iraq(which has become ISIS) is the US war on iraq, their dismantling of the iraqi army..dont blame iran for US doing.
Posted by: brian | Nov 6 2014 21:33 utc | 70
re 68 No you don't understand that ISIS are simply doing what they are paid to do - create mayhem and kill a lot of NON-JEWISH people.
Believe what you wish to believe. ISIS would not have attacked the Kurds, if they had been under Israeli control.
It is Jabhat al-Nusra who are in alliance with Israel, and in contact over the Golan.
Posted by: Laguerre | Nov 6 2014 21:40 utc | 71
Its not a "belief" -its an accurate description of what has happened
ISIS would not have attacked the Kurds, if they had been under Israeli control.
Now THAT is a "belief".
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 6 2014 21:47 utc | 72
L@&!
I don't think you can verify an alliance between Nursra and Israel even though Nursra's attacks on Hezbollah may benefit Israel, they are still and have always been opposed to the existence of Israel.
Nursra seems to be working closely with the IS today and may soon cease to exist as a seperate entity as the larger better equipped and more effective force comes to dominate the conquest of the Levant.
Posted by: Wayoutwest | Nov 6 2014 22:38 utc | 73
re 73
I don't think you can verify an alliance between Nursra and Israel even though Nursra's attacks on Hezbollah may benefit Israel, they are still and have always been opposed to the existence of Israel.
There's quite a lot of circumstantial evidence, including evidence of contacts over the Golan, and meetings with Israeli officers, but I don't have time to get it out today.
Posted by: Laguerre | Nov 6 2014 22:53 utc | 74
JM@65
I understand why you and many others are still in denial about the Islamic State and their growing support, it is being called "Baghdadi Denial Syndrome" by some pundits and reflects the inability of some people to grasp the new reality in the ME.
There is a false security in believing that the West and our minions control all events in the world and the Idea that some group has broken free of that control shatters that exceptional viewpoint.
Time will show who is seeing things clearly and who is fooling themselves but some people will cling desperately to their illusions.
Posted by: Wayoutwest | Nov 6 2014 22:59 utc | 75
'I don't think you can verify an alliance between Nursra and Israel even though Nursra's attacks on Hezbollah may benefit Israel, they are still and have always been opposed to the existence of Israel.
...
Posted by: Wayoutwest | Nov 6, 2014 5:38:37 PM | 73
sez who?
Posted by: brian | Nov 6 2014 23:26 utc | 76
@75
And i understand that you are also in complete denial. I think i herad it referred to as "stupidity denial syndrome."
Despite all your blathering retarded bullshit to the contrary, its a fact that these groups, which you stupidly or dishonestly claim are grass-roots, have been armed, trained and financed by the empire and its minions.
Time will show who is seeing things clearly and who is fooling themselves but some people will cling desperately to their illusions.
Posted by: Wayoutwest | Nov 6, 2014 5:59:05 PM | 75
Yes time will tell, and when it does, you, being a dishonest little turd brain, will continue to deny the obvious, just as you are doing now
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 6 2014 23:59 utc | 77
JM@77
Sorry, J I must have hit a soft spot in your tender psyche to elicit such a jejune response. Come back when you mature enough to carry on an adult conversation.
Posted by: Wayoutwest | Nov 7 2014 2:39 utc | 79
Nah i just got tired listening to you being an utter moron
I dont feel at all compelled to by even slightly polite to obvious morons
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 7 2014 3:00 utc | 80
Like all morons WankerOutWest simply refuses to acknowledge anything that might be inconvenient for his dumbass argument, such as the fact that these groups, which he claims are all homegrown genuine grassroots, are all financed trained and armed by the empire and its minions
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 7 2014 3:03 utc | 81
79- J may be childish and simple cystic, and even childish, but he's in other words don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining! In other words hello yin on plan?
Posted by: Hejiminy cricket | Nov 7 2014 3:15 utc | 82
One can at least grow out of being chilish
But unfortunately for ol wankeroutwest being a moron is for life
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 7 2014 3:19 utc | 83
True.
You'r prose is pungent and lingers like Kim Jung Ils Swiss cheese farts.
Don't go away.
Posted by: Hejiminy cricket | Nov 7 2014 3:26 utc | 84
HJC@82
The Yinon Plan was progressing nicely with Iraq already divided Lebanon splintered and Syria being dismantled until the Islamic State took advantage of the existing ruptures to begin their building of the united Caliphate.
They show no desire to settle for pieces of territory to rule, they want it all and the rest of the ME included. Their vision is in direct conflict with Israel's Yinon Plan and Israeli leaders have said that they see no force, of their Arab neighbors, that can stop them except for themselves and possibly Egypt. Within a few years we will see if Israel or Egypt can actually resist the Sword Of Islam.
Posted by: Wayoutwest | Nov 7 2014 5:17 utc | 85
So wanker's whole argument boils down simply to : them ISIS guys is rogue. They's outta control
He finally acknowledges the yinon plan, finally admits that that is what the Zio-UsEmpire has been enacting, after months of denying it, but then riuns it all by claiming "and they woulda gotten away with it too if'n tweren't for the damn meddling ISIS kids"
Lol
All this while even a half-wit should be able to see that ISIS is actually run by one of the Empires agents
Just as The guy that ran the mosul op was also clearly an Empire agent
Ol wankoutwest will deny all of that though
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 7 2014 10:01 utc | 86
On a number of occasions, I have documented in relative detail how ISIS, ISIL, Al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, and the FSA are not only small divisions of the same fighting force but also how they are entirely controlled by NATO and Western intelligence agencies.
Indeed, the documentation of these relationships is so plentiful as to preclude any attempt to collect even a substantial portion of it in one place.
Yet, only in the bits of dribble provided by mainstream media outlets is there the pretense that the above-listed terrorist organizations are anything but NATO’s and the CIA’s Arab legion. . . .
ISIS Is Controlled By The U.S. And NATO
It is important to point out that the Islamic State is not some shadowy force that emerged from the caves of Afghanistan to form an effective military force that is funded by Twitter donations and murky secretive finance deals.
IS is entirely the creation of NATO and the West and it remains in control of the organization.
As Tony Cartalucci writes in his article “Implausible Deniability: West’s ISIS Terror Hordes In Iraq,” Beginning in 2011 - and actually even as early as 2007 - the United States has been arming, funding, and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and a myriad of armed terrorist organizations to overthrow the government of Syria, fight Hezbollah in Lebanon, and undermine the power and influence of Iran, which of course includes any other government or group in the MENA region friendly toward Tehran.
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 7 2014 11:33 utc | 87
how brainwashing works:
'This was in the mid-1990s, during an escalation of the Chechen resistance against Russian rule. After class, we’d turn on the television and watch feeds of destruction and suffering. The videos were upsetting. So upsetting that soon I found myself thinking about abandoning my religious education to pick up a gun and fight for Chechen freedom'
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39608.htm
but the idea he was driven by his US background is dodgy
butL
'For me, wanting to go to Chechnya wasn’t reducible to my “Muslim rage” or “hatred for the West.” This may be hard to believe, but I thought about the war in terms of compassion. Like so many Americans moved by their love of country to serve in the armed forces, I yearned to fight oppression and protect the safety and dignity of others. I believed that this world was in bad shape. I placed my faith in somewhat magical solutions claiming that the world could be fixed by a renewal of authentic Islam and a truly Islamic system of government. But I also believed that working toward justice was more valuable than my own life.;'
============
the jihadi believes what he is doing is right and just(right + just = righteous). the state of 'righteousness' is what the teacher wants to create in his students
Posted by: brian | Nov 7 2014 12:05 utc | 88
a 13 year old jihadi from UK primed to kill even brits, and who seems to see ISIS as killing only american agents
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29921816
Posted by: brian | Nov 7 2014 12:06 utc | 89
Blowback And The Incompetence Theory
Most importantly, however, proponents of the blowback theory, regardless of their good intentions, [LOL!] essentially act as cover-up artists for the world oligarchy. Like 9/11, “incompetence theories,” blowbackers are forced to admit that such terrorist organizations are organically organized in response to some perceived injustice. Even blowbackers who are able to admit that groups like al-Qaeda were actually created by the United States intelligence community are subsequently forced to acquiesce to the idea that it is an organization that was abandoned by the U.S., mishandled, or otherwise no longer under the control of the West.This argument, of course, fundamentally misses the facts surrounding situations like 9/11, 7/7, the 1993 WTC bombing, Libya, Iraq, and Syria.
Indeed, attempting to understand any of the crises mentioned above without understanding that NATO, the United States, Britain, France, Israel, GCC, and other allies not only created but funded, directed, trained, armed, and continue to control these terrorist organizations, is an exercise in futility. That is, such an approach is an exercise in futility if one’s goal is to determine the truth surrounding the situation.
For this reason, blowback theory is generally pushed by “gatekeepers” for the establishment. The purpose and method of the gatekeeper is to act as one of the last buffers against an individual’s potential to discover the true nature of the conflict. The gatekeeper must present criticism seen as hard-hitting, unpopular, and cutting edge while, at the same time, not going so far as to reveal the actual nature of the situation. The gatekeeper cannot allow the ardent follower to get too close to reality. Thus, when the ardent follower begins to introduce relevant facts into the discussion that question even the gatekeeper’s narrative, the gatekeeper typically responds with catcalls of “conspiracy theory.”
The blowback superstars include a small number of politicians but especially include individuals like Noam Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald, two individuals who have repeatedly assailed the 9/11 truth movement despite their inability to adequately address the inconsistencies in the official story or provide adequate solutions to any problem they are forced to address.. . . .
. . . .
Blowback theory presents the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, 7/7, 9/11, and other terrorist attacks as a response to Western aggression and thus completely covers up the fact that these attacks were entirely orchestrated by the very governments who claimed victimhood by them after the fact. Blowback theory presents the emergence of ISIS in Iraq and Syria as an organic creation that appeared due to American interference in Iraq. Blowback theory attempts to portray al-Qaeda as a group that was created (if the theory proponent is even moderately honest) by the U.S. which has come back to bite us.The truth is that “blowback” has very little, if any, historical precedent.
It is also the truth that “blowback” is nothing more than intellectual gatekeeping, regardless of who espouses it. If one wishes to discover the hidden hand behind international terror, he need look no further than Washington, D.C., London, Riyadh, and Tel Aviv. He may begin looking at the myriad of inconsistencies surrounding virtually every terrorist attack that has occurred in the Western world within recent memory, a search that will lead to precisely the same locations.
It is also the truth that “blowback” is nothing more than intellectual gatekeeping, regardless of who espouses it. . . . . He may begin looking at the myriad of inconsistencies surrounding virtually every terrorist attack that has occurred in the Western world within recent memory, a search that will lead to precisely the same locations.
Or not
as in the case of most of the fakes that pimp the blowback/Incompetence theories around here
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 7 2014 15:05 utc | 90
I feel real horror at what ISIS is doing.
Dan makes sense, what is aim is idk, maybe just pricking complacency and idiocy.
How is ISIS worse than the US, who in Iraq killed and displaced and robbed of a future, many millions of people? (The stats are horrifying and usually not correctly reported.) So that is just ho hum US foreign policy or what not. ISIS makes videos about beheadings, it is all right in your face. The US covers up torture and murders are never exposed. (Secret pictures thrill sadists there is a big market for it…)
The US destroyed Iraq, Afgh, Lybia…now some crazed and paid (in part by the US!) rebels are on a rampage killing, violating, destroying, controlling? What else is to be expected? And pple are outraged! Barbarism! Crazy Islamists, Al Quaeda, al Nusra, murder, rape, 9/11!
As for a manifesto (ISIS), it is not hard to find. It is an aim at a new State (yeah not conceptually new) that will control ressources of the territory and instore and Islamic state, with Sharia law, and so on. The powerful will use the clerics or fundamentalists, etc. to control the population thru pay-outs (social redistribution of a personal type thru a sort of ‘trust’ scheme), keep on / coerce the managers through violence and threats and good pay, to keep the area going, more or less, I reckon that will happen. Sharia will see to it that all children and all women will be controlled very strictly. Men will either join or bow down.
Posted by: Noirette | Nov 7 2014 18:54 utc | 91
I think we are witnessing the apogee of ultraliberalism:
ultraviolence. Foreseen in Kubrik's Clockwork Orange or in Mad Max.
It was predictable that kids fed with violent TV all day and not given enough intellectual strength to cope with these pictures invading their imaginations would eventually lose any notion of reality. The way Western countries treat their poors and 'visible minorities' also plays a role.
Posted by: Mina | Nov 7 2014 19:20 utc | 92
How is ISIS worse than the US,
Posted by: Noirette | Nov 7, 2014 1:54:25 PM | 91
You lot are real experts at making things a lot more complicated than they actually are.
The answer to your question is really really simple.
How is ISIS worse than the US The Empire?
Here's the really simple solution to this little conundrum that has ya all flummoxed:
A) It isn't . . . .
Nice and simple, see?
Why? . . . .
. . . . because ISIS is the The Empire
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 7 2014 22:13 utc | 93
the apogee of ultraliberalism:
LOL
how ultraintellectual of you, Zina
Only problem with that massive dose of pseudo-intellectualism dished out by Zina above is this: ISIS are doin nothing that hasn't already been done years ago by US trained death squads in places like Central and south America
Only difference now is the internet
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 7 2014 22:17 utc | 94
btw
As for a manifesto (ISIS), it is not hard to find. It is an aim at a new State (yeah not conceptually new) that will control ressources of the territory and instore and Islamic state, with Sharia law, and so on. The powerful will use the clerics or fundamentalists, etc. to control the population thru pay-outs (social redistribution of a personal type thru a sort of ‘trust’ scheme), keep on / coerce the managers through violence and threats and good pay, to keep the area going, more or less, I reckon that will happen. Sharia will see to it that all children and all women will be controlled very strictly. Men will either join or bow down.
Posted by: Noirette | Nov 7, 2014 1:54:25 PM | 91
This is nonsense
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 7 2014 22:21 utc | 95
LOL
- New deployment doubles US military presence in troubled country
Troops will train, advise and assist Iraqi military but Pentagon says they will not take part in operations against ISIS fanatics
Two bases for operations - Baghdad and Irbil, both of which are near frontline of war on Islamic State militants
Air Force and Navy jets already in action over Iraq and Syria carrying out airstrike
MailOnline told US special forces will already be engaged in operations
train, advise and assist !!!
No no - ISIS and the Empire ? Absolutely not joined at the hip
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 7 2014 22:56 utc | 97
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 7, 2014 10:05:34 AM | 90
People familiar with the content of Robert Pape's exhaustively researched book, Dying To Win, are a little more cautious about dismissing blowback as an imaginary, Leftish, concept than your good self.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 8 2014 5:33 utc | 98
JM@96
I wasn't convinced until this last link verified my suspicion that you are a Irainan stooge. You need to hire more conmpetent propagandists because the trash you offer is only swallowed by fools and those with weak minds.
Posted by: Wayoutwest | Nov 8 2014 7:17 utc | 99
98
You be as cautious as you like, Hoarsy
While you're worrying about being a cautious little mouse, I'll just post about what's blindingly obvious
99
Lol
What a moron.
Posted by: JMcC | Nov 8 2014 10:11 utc | 100
The comments to this entry are closed.
"training" is another means of directing money into the military industrial complex which presently defines the usa.. meddling in others affairs, for corporate interests is what they do best!!! it gets packaged with lies and whatever kind of propaganda that has to go with it which is the cost of doing 'biz'.. the usa no longer represents ordinary people or anything about democracy...
Posted by: james | Nov 4 2014 20:21 utc | 1