ISIS militants attack and take over Iraqi northern city of Mosul

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would agree with the whole propaganda thing, but aside from the WMD and the incubator thing. Hussien on a personal level and a governmental level was incredibly brutal and it was beyond maintaining power, the man was a personal sadist and a rapist and a monster, and he took pride in making his son into monsters.

Yes. But Sadaam was no worse than about every other African dictator over the last six decades. You need more than a blend of Pol Pot and Mugabe to get involved these days. You need spooky guns and dead babies on CNN.

As for the WMD thing, I have this personal theory that even Saddam believed that Iraq had them, he had to because he knew in defying the west and hiding his so called weapons and threatening to use them that he was putting his own head in the noose.

And I believe because of his nature that his own people maintained that illusion, frankly if the choice is telling your leader that believes that you've been working on bigger and badder weapons that yes you're on track and have 50,000 gallons of nerve gas or having your finger nails pulled out and your eyes gouged out with a hot poker after watching your wife and kids raped and murdered you're going to say "Yes sir, they're in that warehouse over there"

I believe right up until the Americans' started coming for him that Saddam believed that he had an ace in the hole until he told his military leaders to use them and they said "Oh yeah, about those barrels of nerve gas, that's actually pee, you should flee"

Pretty interesting theory. I think either way, it makes the Americans untrustable. Either they lied and got caught. Or they have no idea what they're doing and can't be trusted to get these things right. Being ignorant is not much better than being dishonest.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Yes. But Sadaam was no worse than about every other African dictator over the last six decades. You need more than a blend of Pol Pot and Mugabe to get involved these days. You need spooky guns and dead babies on CNN.



Pretty interesting theory. I think either way, it makes the Americans untrustable. Either they lied and got caught. Or they have no idea what they're doing and can't be trusted to get these things right. Being ignorant is not much better than being dishonest.

Everyone has this vision that the American intelligence apparatus is competent, that the halls of the CIA are filled with steel eyed super analysts talking to James Bond types and giving good information to the President so that he can make proper decisions.

The true story is that for the most part outside of Sat and electronic recon America's spy agencies are just plain bad, lazy and uncooperative, while I don't doubt that the Bush Government engaged in 90210 type of invention, but I would combine it with the fact that between turf fights between agencies, bad analysis or even worse skewed analysis to protect their turf that the President of the United States is rarely getting good information on time.

The CIA hasn't been one of the top spy agencies since Dulles in the 60's, nor has it been competently run since then.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

As for the WMD thing, I have this personal theory that even Saddam believed that Iraq had them, he had to because he knew in defying the west and hiding his so called weapons and threatening to use them that he was putting his own head in the noose.

My theory is that he never wanted to outright admit to the world that he didn't have them any more because it would make him look weak. It would practically invite Kurdish and Iranian backed Shia uprisings, plus religious extremist factions to form. WMDs (or at least the possibility that he had them) was the card up his sleeve for keeping people in line.

He did have them at one point (the U.S. armed him to begin with), but I think he got rid of them under pressure from the UN and was trying to work out an agreement with the U.S. to let him save face and keep power. But for the U.S., it was never about that anyway. It was just a pretense.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by nik-

ISIS has existed for more than a decade. They just had a name change.

I disagree.

ISIS did inherit some leadership from Al Queda. However, the bulk of their army seems to be new recruits, both foreign and local. It's actually quite a weird phenomenon that thousands of people from western nations would join a group like ISIS.

[nik-]

Some leadership as in the top leadership.

AQI was Al-Qaeda in name only. ISIS methods are Al Zarqawi methods, their ideology is his ideology. It's a direct line.

The situation in Syria obviously helped them boom, but to lay their creation on Obama is ridiculous.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by nik-

Some leadership as in the top leadership.

AQI was Al-Qaeda in name only. ISIS methods are Al Zarqawi methods, their ideology is his ideology. It's a direct line.

The situation in Syria obviously helped them boom, but to lay their creation on Obama is ridiculous.

Tracing ideological lines? That's more like saying ISIS was inspired by Al-Queda than ISIS is Al-Queda. The top leadership isn't really stable. They're continually killed off and replaced.

I'd agree what you're saying is more true of the ISIS branch in Iraq, which was really just a conversion of the Al-Queda of Iraq and already had an existing infrastructure. However, in Syria, where ISIS arose first, the group largely materialized out of nothing. Al-Nusra front formed from section of the FSA. Al-Nusra front then evolved into ISIS after an influx of foreign fighters entered the country.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by blankall

Tracing ideological lines? That's more like saying ISIS was inspired by Al-Queda than ISIS is Al-Queda. The top leadership isn't really stable. They're continually killed off and replaced.

I'd agree what you're saying is more true of the ISIS branch in Iraq, which was really just a conversion of the Al-Queda of Iraq and already had an existing infrastructure. However, in Syria, where ISIS arose first, the group largely materialized out of nothing. Al-Nusra front formed from section of the FSA. Al-Nusra front then evolved into ISIS after an influx of foreign fighters entered the country.

This is wrong. AQI, which by that point was Islamic State in Iraq send people into Syria to fight and started expanding their ranks. These people that went into Syria named themselves Al-Nusra, but they ended up splitting off from ISIS when ISIS went gangbusters. The root of this is still ISI, which is AQI. Syria was practice, not the birth.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by nik-

This is wrong. AQI, which by that point was Islamic State in Iraq send people into Syria to fight and started expanding their ranks. These people that went into Syria named themselves Al-Nusra, but they ended up splitting off from ISIS when ISIS went gangbusters. The root of this is still ISI, which is AQI. Syria was practice, not the birth.

Not quite.

Al Nusra front was formed from Syrians who took inspiration from AQI. Yes they met and coordinated somewhat with AQI, but the Syrians islamists were already there and fighting. It was more of a name change and statement of joint intent. Kind of like if you had 2 separate biker gangs who decided to joing up as 2 chapters of the same gang.

[Flash Walken]

ISIS received the majority of their startup funding directly from the US Military.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by blankall

Not quite.

Al Nusra front was formed from Syrians who took inspiration from AQI. Yes they met and coordinated somewhat with AQI, but the Syrians islamists were already there and fighting. It was more of a name change and statement of joint intent. Kind of like if you had 2 separate biker gangs who decided to joing up as 2 chapters of the same gang.

Ok, even if you accept that Al-Nusra is a Syrian creation (I don't). Al-Nusra broke away from ISIS and is still aligned with AQ, while ISIS still follows the AQI/ISI leadership. ISIS is an Iraq creation.

This is why I don't agree that Al-Nusra is a Syrian creation.

http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/wp...c-briefing.pdf

Many cadres of JN come from the jihadist network of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which was built during
the 2000s and solidified in Hai al-Jami'a, Baghdad, in 2002, following Al-Zarqawi's arrival from
Afghanistan via Iran. Syrians who had been with Al-Zarqawi in Herat, Afghanistan, in 2000 were sent
to build branches of his network in Syria and Lebanon, with Al-Zarqawi exercising control from Iraq.
These jihadists established 'guesthouses' in Syria to channel would-be fighters to Iraq, and the
infrastructure flourished. During this period, Syria acted as the main channel for funding for the
network, with Saudi and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) jihadists in the Levant securing financial
support from sympathisers in their home countries.
...

When the Syrian Revolution began, members of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) came to a collective
agreement to send Syrian jihadists, Iraqi experts and top lieutenants of guerrilla warfare into the
country. It is not clear whether this agreement outlined this new force, JN, as a branch of AQI or as a
separate entity, al-Qaeda in the Levant (AQL). According to our sources, JN are still receiving strategic
and ideological guidance from the Islamic State of Iraq, and their development is still being
monitored by AQI today. In time, JN may define itself as AQL, an autonomous structure ideologically
affiliated with, but not taking orders from the ISI.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

ISIS received the majority of their startup funding directly from the US Military.

No they really didn't...

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Part of that sadism was a bunch of "atrocity propaganda"... made up stories including one about Iraqi soldiers chucking babies out of incubators; a story that would obviously make people think we should go to war. Another of these examples is the wmd nonsense during the second go around with Sadaam. Powell was coached for days about how to make it all sound believable. His 2003 speech at the UN is now obviously propaganda and deception.

Dude... yes, a bunch of the basis upon which the Iraq war was sold to everyone was absolute nonsense, particularly the WMD stuff. But to even attempt to downplay the degree to which that country was an absolute abbatoir of awfulness is absurd.

Had the war instead been sold as "this is a mission of mercy to liberate Iraq's citizens from a horrible dictatorial regime", the appropriate response might have been, "sure, but our intervention isn't likely to make things any better for those people, so let's not spend lives and money on it". It certainly would not have been, "we shouldn't, because things there aren't as bad as you're claiming".

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Dude... yes, a bunch of the basis upon which the Iraq war was sold to everyone was absolute nonsense, particularly the WMD stuff. But to even attempt to downplay the degree to which that country was an absolute abbatoir of awfulness is absurd.

Had the war instead been sold as "this is a mission of mercy to liberate Iraq's citizens from a horrible dictatorial regime", the appropriate response might have been, "sure, but our intervention isn't likely to make things any better for those people, so let's not spend lives and money on it". It certainly would not have been, "we shouldn't, because things there aren't as bad as you're claiming".

Honestly, did anyone actually go for that WMD stuff anyways? Saddam had actually used WMDs on the Kurds in his gas attacks about 15 years earlier, and he'd used them many times during the Iran/Iraq war. My response to the WMD thing was essentially, even if he does have them, why are they bringing it up now?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Dude... yes, a bunch of the basis upon which the Iraq war was sold to everyone was absolute nonsense, particularly the WMD stuff. But to even attempt to downplay the degree to which that country was an absolute abbatoir of awfulness is absurd.

Had the war instead been sold as "this is a mission of mercy to liberate Iraq's citizens from a horrible dictatorial regime", the appropriate response might have been, "sure, but our intervention isn't likely to make things any better for those people, so let's not spend lives and money on it". It certainly would not have been, "we shouldn't, because things there aren't as bad as you're claiming".

That's actually not what I'm saying. I'm saying the dialogue that convinced people to go to war in Iraq was total deception. Why not invade Zimbabwe instead? That guy was pretty bad too. Pol Pot was way worse. They needed a reason beyond oil and so they manufactured a reason. Now, we're getting the same story about Syria by the same people who brought you Nayira and WMD"s. How do you know what they tell you about Assad is true? How do you know the CIA didn't do the dirty work themselves?

Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again!'

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

How do you know what they tell you about Assad is true? How do you know the CIA didn't do the dirty work themselves?

Oh dear. I didn't know I was talking to that guy. Good day, sir.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Oh dear. I didn't know I was talking to that guy. Good day, sir.

Oh whatever. How many times do you need to be lied to before you stop believing people? Honest question. Like fifty times? A hundred?

[worth]

Map of Russian airstrikes in Syria:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/vi...Q.kFa_qMMdFl48

[blankall]

Originally Posted by worth

Map of Russian airstrikes in Syria:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/vi...Q.kFa_qMMdFl48

Well they've hit Raqqah now...actual ISIS activity there.

[blueski]

Looks pretty easy for WWIII to start either on purpose or by accident.

[CroFlames]

In a manner of speaking, the indignation in the USA right now that the Russians have the audacity to go and bomb militants is funny.

It's like only the USA has the God given right and permission to bomb people.

Some media outlets just skip over that part altogether though; I guess they feel it's embarrassing that Russia is trying to be the world police while America sits back.