UKC

As is well known, Western powers, the UK and US especially, rarely get involved in military action unless there is some sort of nefarious alternative purpose. So what's the rub with the fight against ISIS? It can't be what it appears to be surely, as the powers that be revel in demonising their enemies through their control of western media, they just can't help themselves can they.

What's really going on? What's the conspiracy?

In reply to IceKing:

Woolsack and Bruce are still waiting for Russia today to tell them what line they should take on it.

In reply to IceKing:



To get everyone to watch The great British bake off

In reply to IceKing:


Well the Gruinard editors assure us, it's an evil Mossad conspiricy, to spread Cafe-latte across the middle east...All kosher of course.

In reply to dissonance:


I don't get Russia Today so can't really use it but what convinces you that it is any less reliable than the BBC or any other media? Gullibility rules, OK?... Is that it?

In reply to IceKing:

I don't know but that long line of brand new white Toyota Land cruiser were pretty impressive, I wonder how they just popped up in the middle of the desert? Immaculate Conception?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


They traded them in for the free Hummers!

In reply to dek:


http://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-trained-by-is...

Who knows?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


For you clearly so. Or rather its not so much general gullibility as anything which reinforces your prejudices.

In reply to woolsack:



If you really want to be convincing, you might want to reconsider posting stuff from globalresearch.

In reply to woolsack:



Wooly
Didn't you get the memo? BigDaddy is now in a life threatening Coma, turns out he's 'Kosher Intolerant'. ..A bit like you actually.

In reply to tony:


Convince who? You? Your mind is made up isn't it?

In reply to IceKing:

Isn't it the fact that an unstable Iraq is very bad for the whole region which no doubt includes lots of US / Saudi / Irsali interests?

In reply to woolsack:


Presumably you do actually want to persuade people of the case?


I don't have a clue what's going on the Middle East. It's all a bloody mess, with nothing good in the foreseeable future. Anyone who thinks there's some kind of masterplan orchestrating Syrian rebels, ISIS, Hamas, Mossad, the CIA and Uncle Tom Cobbly from a bunker in Washington is bonkers.

In reply to tony:

Now theirs a master plan...

In reply to woolsack:



It seems its a quite transparent fake (because the Guardian, NYT etc have the Snowden documents and presumably would have reported on it like they did everything else illegal Snowden showed the CIA were doing). No one who repeats the story can find the interview with Snowden. http://time.com/2992269/isis-is-an-american-plot-says-iran/

In reply to TobyA:

No conspiracy, oil exploration is massive in the area. That, some humanitarian concerns, and a general concern about spreading fundamentalist Islam and that de-stablizing the area even more.

In reply to tony:

Agree, Global Research is a crackpot website.

In reply to ByEek:


Probably but that's a bit dull, couldn't you add some lizards and nukes?

jk

In reply to IceKing:

The answer is on the BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28745990

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


For once I agree with Bruce.
RT has a Russian bias, Al-Jazeera has a pro-political Islam bias, and the BBC has its traditional old "Britannia rules" and pro-western bias.

There are NO independent news channel, you just need to watch them all and make your own opinion. I find that the most independent are CNN World and Euronews as they always display and discuss a wide variety of perspectives.

In reply to dissonance:


Dissonance's definition of "prejudice": Anything which goes against the generally accepted policies and view points of the Western World.

In reply to tony:


Doesn't stop you from posting strong and often offensive posts though, does it?

How do you do it?

In reply to Andy Say:

Good link, a quote:

"Most people here [in Beirut] believe the US and Saudi are one and when it comes strictly down to oil money, the ultimate benefactor from the whole IS debacle is Saudi/the US. As history has taught us, it is usually the benefactors who are the instigators," says Amer Murad, a native of Beirut.

Does anybody posting here deny that the USA set up the mujhadin movements in Afghanistan back in 89, and armed and financed them for years, that their close Allies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States finance the islamists in Syria? Or that NATO (ie. the USA) encouraged and armed the islamists in Libya who helped them bring down Ghadaffi? Why then is it so difficult to believe that IS is an even more twisted offspring of US foreign policy? Whether it's 100% true or not the MO is clear.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


ermm no but good try. Now why dont you go and get some more laughable facts from global research?

In reply to IceKing:
There are oil interests in Iraq, and also there's some sense of responsibility for the chaos there.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



I take lessons from you.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:




That's quite wrong. The mujadadeen in Afghanistan set up their own political parties, often religious or caste-based. Ahmad Shah Masood, for example, led the military wing of the Jamiaat-i-Islami, which was founded in 1968. The US funded a lot of mujahadeen groups from around 1980 onwards.

Even if you had got the facts correct, I'd fail to see the relevance. After all, policy does change.

In reply to seankenny:

The basic principle remains though that millions of hooky -off balance sheet- dollars have been poured into destabilising governments that the US don't like for 60 or 70 years. ISIS is probably just the latest incarnation of US policy to frighten and manipulate

Is it irony that the US Navy is bombing US made weapons at the moment?

In reply to woolsack:


So you're saying that whilst the US has the guile to manipulate everything behind the scenes, the Arabs are not together enough to create their own terrorist band and carve out a swathe of territory for themselves, off their own back? It's a deeply imperialist reading of current affairs to assume that non-western people are incapable of building their own political/religious groups and acheiving success with them. Assuing that "we" have to be involved with everything is deeply patronising to the people who've built up those groups...

Believing that the US is behind everything is just a shelter from the confusing randomness of the world, and trying to understand complex and often contradictory relationships. Why put that effort into learning about a very messy and difficult reality when you can simply say "it's Uncle Sam wot did it" and that's that.



You clearly haven't read Catch-22 yet.

In reply to seankenny:

I was in Afghanistan in 70 and also in 74, there were no jihadists operating then. You should read a book called Unholy Wars by John Colley

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Unholy-Wars-Afghanistan-International-Terrorism/dp/...

He gives a very complete account of US, and Saudi, involvement in Afghanistan.

In reply to seankenny:

The US has a lot of previous in this area, we're always being told to use Occam's. The Arab groups never seem particularly good at working together, what's different with this lot? Better 'advisers'?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Thanks for the recommendation. Whilst there were no jihadists, there were plenty of Islamic political groups operating, particularly on the Kabul University campus. Or are you disputing the date of the founding of Jamiaat?




I'm not saying that there was no US or Saudi involvement, rather that your dates were wrong, your suggestion that the US "created" those groups is wrong, and that to assume the events of Afghanistan in the 1980s are being exactly replicated is a facile analysis.

In reply to jkarran:

sorry, no lizards
youtube.com/watch?v=RFrqp1rVPgg&

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Seeing as how the USSR withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989 I think you might be ever so slightly incorrect with your date. I wonder if you are wrong about other things.

In reply to IceKing:


Is it?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You could try Unholy War by David Kertzer on the role of the catholic church in modern anti-semitism.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Sorry it was 79 when they started, I post from memory, don't look up the details each time, but read the book all the details are there. The original order was given as early as 79 before the Soviet intervention, first it was arms through Egypt then Pakistan to whichever bands they wanted to help. It's a long story, read it for yourself.

In reply to seankenny:


That's not what I said, I said that given the US past actions in the area which are public knowledge it's hardly surprising that people now think they are at it again, which is the case apparently if the examples given for Lebanon are anything to go by.

That they should start a movement then go on to bomb them would not be original either!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well, if you can't get the most basic dates in recent world history right, or can't be bothered to look them up - takes just a minute - then we can only conclude you're not a particularly trustworthy source. Sound and fury, yes, but substance?

So you agree that your original post was wrong, the groups were armed by the US but not set up by them?

And yes, Bruce, I've read a few books on this - not enough to make me an expert, by any stretch, but a few.

In reply to seankenny:

I suppose you spend a time checking your dates before posting? Are you that keen on being "right"? Between "setting up" and "armed" the nuance is fine, especially when by manipulating the supply they could favour one or another.

The actual level of penetration of the political groups in Afghanistan, yes there were political parties too, by the CIA is also open to discussion. When I went there it was incredibly poor, feudal outside Kabul, corrupt within, but still managing to keep a level of independence between the Communist and Capitalist blocks, and making slow social and economic progress... The following years destroyed the country reduced it to a mess at the hand of fanatics, drug runners and the men in white 4x4s you admire so much.

I don't think it was an accident, it was one of the greatest victories of the crew cut men as it helped bring down the USSR and win the cold war for capitalism but for the Afghan people, just pawns in the middle, it wasn't much of a bargain.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


No, it's a massive difference, as is obvious to anyone who thinks about it for a minute.


Isn't one reading of history that social progress in the early 1970s was actually too fast, sparking a backlash from more reactionary groups in society?

I am not quite sure how aid workers ruined the country, at some point your usual left-ish rants seem to have picked up a few right-wing tropes, it's an odd thing but that's Hookerworld for you.




Your faith in our leaders to do things which are planned, premeditated and successful decades later is very sweet.

In reply to woolsack:

I've seen a quite a few NATO specced lights arms and the odd AT weapons used by IS in Syria on Jihaditube. Nothing but AKs and similar old soviet style HMGs on the 'same' IS in northern Iraq. Not saying they are not there, can you point me to some evidence on Jihaditube? In addition there may be plenty of U.S. arms floating about since the Iraqi forces ran away.

D

In reply to Dauphin:

http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/08/us-navy-bombing-american-made-equ...

In reply to woolsack:

Cheers, as I suspected.

D

In reply to seankenny:


And your naivety is truly amazing, unless it is feigned. There are quotes about the deliberate nature of the the US destabilization of the USSR by drawing them into a war in Afghanistan, "giving them their own Vietnam", "hitting the soft under-belly of the Soviet Union", etc., it's common knowledge. The book I read will inform you more, also Afgantsy and many more. Even wikipedia mentions it "Operation_Cyclone":

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

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Yes Bruce, I'm familiar with that history. Of course the US wanted to give it to the Soviet Union, and found they had a chance in Afghanistan. Did they think it would lead to the downfall of the USSR? I really don't think so - it was just a piece of opportunism, as is so much of political life.

In reply to seankenny:


Of course it was opportunistic, fighting battles usually is, they rarely go as planned. I went round the Battle of Hastings site yesterday with some French in-laws and clearly William won by being quicker at taking opportunities than Harold did, quicker and also more prudent, which sounds contradictory but isn't, so what the Yanks did in Afghanistan is nothing new, which is why your initial refusal to accept it seemed so odd. now you agree that conspiracies not only do exist but they enable major historical changes - the winning of the Cold War by the USA and the following demise of the Soviet block - at least we have come to agree on one point, even if it was hard going.

It also goes a long way to reducing another of your claims; that nattering on a forum is a waste of time, clearly this proves it isn't.

In reply to IceKing:

The US and the UK now have a government that are in bed with the west. this means that from an economic point of view we now stabilise the oil production and can supply western Oil companies to drill and manage oil production (Bringing in revenue for the UK and US). If ISIS move into Iraq they will threaten oil production and de-stabilise the region and that's not good for the west or its profits!

The west also have a strategic staging point for any future wars by being able to re-fuel in Iraq and also keep Battle groups in the southern Al-fawr peninsula(the gulf) which is strategic in terms of both oil shipping and military control.

So in answer to your question OIL.... Oil and ermmm OIL...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well, I'm not sure that you'd call the arming of the mujahadeen as a "conspiracy" - I mean they did it all relatively above board, everyone knew the US was involved in Afghanistan. As I understand it, historians are divided as to the importance of Afghanistan to the fall of the Soviet Union, and to the importance of the US arms in the fall of Afghanistan (increasing unwillingness of the Soviet public to countenance the war being equally important in some eyes). As I understand it, Reagan's nuclear arms race in the early 1980s was also very important in the fall of the USSR.

Most conspiracies are discovered fairly quickly, and tend to be sordid, relatively inconsequential affairs, like Oliver North and arms to Iran. The exception to this being the one you should have mentioned, which was both sordid and extremely consequential: Watergate.

In reply to Matt300:




Titan, one of Saturn's moons has more hydrocarbons than Earth. I hear they are due for some regime change there soon. Gotta love freedom and democracy!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

As you seem interested in that period of Afghan history you might enjoy the Documentary from World Service that was on last week http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p023vg8l Revelations from an Afghan asylum seeker in Holland led to Holland opening a war crimes investigation into the mass killings that followed the Saur Revolution.

In reply to TobyA:


I heard that. I hadn't realised that the regime that the Soviets invaded to support had been so murderous.

In reply to Matt300:

>> So in answer to your question OIL.... Oil and ermmm OIL...

The strategy isn't exactly working at the moment, is it?

In reply to Pekkie:

I'm certainly not pro west when it comes to Oil. Lets face it Irans government and people distrust the British because we turned their country on its arse for Oil, why wouldn't we do the same with Iraq ??

The reason Saddam attacked Kuwait during the first gulf war is because Kuwait owed Saddam Billions of dollars for protection during the Iran/Iraq war. When the Kuwaitis refused to pay up Saddam invaded to take what he was owed. the UK and US moved in to protect their assets(Oil fields). But we were told it was to protect the kuwaitis!! its all about the OIL....

In reply to Matt300:

Wasn't the Kuwait/Iraq loan the other way around?

In reply to FactorXXX:
I stand corrected! It was the Iraqis that owed the Kuwaitis $64bn. That's the last time I use the Daily Mirror for my research