22 Jun 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainI read the article, there is no indication in it that the US is responsible for arming this group. Although it is a basic mistake that the West has made time and again.
Is this an example of blow back or is the USA secretly trying to overthrow the Iraqi government while pretending to support it?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/21/us-syria-east-isil-idUSKBN0EW0YX20140621
22 Jun 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhat is an offshoot?
I read the article, there is no indication in it that the US is responsible for arming this group. Although it is a basic mistake that the West has made time and again.
Maybe the offshoot was not intended to be armed but you would have to be a fool to think the USA didn't arm people that led to ISIL being the powerful force it is right now. Blow back for sure.
22 Jun 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhat benefit does the U.S. gain from overthrowing the Iraqi government, after they already removed Saddam, and changed their government from a dictatorship to a democratic one?
Is this an example of blow back or is the USA secretly trying to overthrow the Iraqi government while pretending to support it?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/21/us-syria-east-isil-idUSKBN0EW0YX20140621
22 Jun 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainI still fail to see any link to the US government in this BBC article. I have no doubt that there are US citizens who have crossed over and are supporting ISIS but that has zip to do with our government.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24179084
22 Jun 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe U.S. stopped funding Al Qaeda donkey's years ago. Do you just post these links hoping people won't read them? I'm afraid that you cannot use these articles to link the US government, and certainly not the current administration, to the funding of this group in any meaningful way whatsoever.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24179084
22 Jun 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIran's supreme leader accused the United States on Sunday of trying to retake control of Iraq by exploiting sectarian rivalries.
The U.S. stopped funding Al Qaeda donkey's years ago. Do you just post these links hoping people won't read them? I'm afraid that you cannot use these articles to link the US government, and certainly not the current administration, to the funding of this group in any meaningful way whatsoever.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/22/us-iraq-security-idUSKBN0EX0BJ20140622
22 Jun 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainBut he did not accuse them of funding ISIL. What is more, according to that article, the president of Iran had suggested that they should work with the U.S. over this. The basic reason for Khamenei saying this is more likely to be concern over being seen to have gone soft over US imperialism than anything else.
Iran's supreme leader accused the United States on Sunday of trying to retake control of Iraq by exploiting sectarian rivalries.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/22/us-iraq-security-idUSKBN0EX0BJ20140622
23 Jun 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSo what. He doesn't have to accuse thew USA of funding to show the USA might be misleading everyone on this. The USA did fund the opposition to Syria's Assad and that the ISIS (or ISIL) is an offshoot of that opposition.
But he did not accuse them of funding ISIL. What is more, according to that article, the president of Iran had suggested that they should work with the U.S. over this. The basic reason for Khamenei saying this is more likely to be concern over being seen to have gone soft over US imperialism than anything else.
I think you are foolish to dismiss that it is likely that those weapons the USA sent to that opposition made it's way to the ISIS offshoot. That is how things usually happen in reality.
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/june/15/haven%E2%80%99t-we-already-done-enough-damage-in-iraq.aspx
23 Jun 14
Originally posted by redbadgerFor sure. I think Al Maliki is a USA puppet gone rogue like Castro. The CIA could not assassinate him so this is the result. Now he is being pressured into either conforming to the USA or step down. If he does neither the USA will arm and fund the ISIS even more until there is nothing left for Al Maliki to govern. Imperialism is a dirty game, especially when so much oil is at stake.
do bears poo in the woods
23 Jun 14
Originally posted by Metal Brain
So what. He doesn't have to accuse thew USA of funding to show the USA might be misleading everyone on this. The USA did fund the opposition to Syria's Assad and that the ISIS (or ISIL) is an offshoot of that opposition.
I think you are foolish to dismiss that it is likely that those weapons the USA sent to that opposition made it's way to the ISIS o ...[text shortened]... chives/featured-articles/2014/june/15/haven%E2%80%99t-we-already-done-enough-damage-in-iraq.aspx
I think you are foolish to dismiss that it is likely that those weapons the USA sent to that opposition made it's way to the ISIS offshoot.Where did I say that hadn't happened? If you re-read my first post, you have to accept I left that possibility open. I simply said that one can't infer any of this from any of the articles that you've posted, which one can't. While it's possible that arms provided to the Syrian resistance got to ISIS/L one can't be certain they did - there's more than one provider of arms in the world.
What I'm resisting in your posts is your apparent desire to accuse the U.S. of intentionally arming this group, which I really don't think that they did, or that they have any interest in destabilizing the current regime.
23 Jun 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSo what you are saying is even though Iran thinks that the USA is using sectarian violence to their advantage and Iran is fine with Al Maliki that the USA likes him too because the USA and Iran are both fine with Al Maliki and both support him?I think you are foolish to dismiss that it is likely that those weapons the USA sent to that opposition made it's way to the ISIS offshoot.Where did I say that hadn't happened? If you re-read my first post, you have to accept I left that possibility open. I simply said that one can't infer any of this from any of the articles that you've ...[text shortened]... y don't think that they did, or that they have any interest in destabilizing the current regime.
Are you insane? Do you really think Iran and the USA are really on the same page on this issue? Why aren't we on the same page with Al Qaeda on Iraq and Syria on this issue. Oh....that is right... we are! Maybe I am insane because I know the facts and you do not! You are the one who is insane you dirt bag! You believe what you want to believe and anybody that says different you sandbag with "I doubt you because I can't see between your logic and propaganda I bought into. You are such a status quo troll!! That is why the USA can promote propaganda and not worry too much about the doubt. People like you accept any crap if it is from a high source. You never question anything from the status quo. That is what makes you a pathetic sheep man follower who does not have an independent mind to work with.
23 Jun 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainFirst stop putting words into my mouth. I said none of the above. I just said that you cannot read any of what you've said into the references you gave.
So what you are saying is even though Iran thinks that the USA is using sectarian violence to their advantage and Iran is fine with Al Maliki that the USA likes him too because the USA and Iran are both fine with Al Maliki and both support him?
Are you insane? Do you really think Iran and the USA are really on the same page on this issue? Why aren't we ...[text shortened]... what makes you a pathetic sheep man follower who does not have an independent mind to work with.
I don't think you do know the facts, I think you just believe the first conspiracy theory that pops into your head. I question most things from "the status quo". This doesn't mean I believe every piece of paranoid crap that comes along instead.