Conspiracy theorists and Liberals are brain Dead on ISIS

As a noted progressive who was staunchly against the IRAQ war in 2003 and a 911 truther and always open to the conspiracy side of the politics and history I am not surprised that the conspiracy thinkers and Liberal takes on ISIS are unfortunately subsumed in dogma not reality.

The old canards: The war machine always makes it worst you hear from the liberals and conspiracy folks like knuckle head Alex Jones but yet he will denounce ISIS for murdering Christians as if one side its all a conspiracy but the fact remains people are being slaughtered whether it is a conspiracy black op or not. They will acknowledge the reality of that but still keep to their conspiracy dogma to define reality ALL THE TIME.

Of course I understand these sites have to cater to their brainwashed readers


As well liberal “peaceniks” tow to their pacifist dogma of antiwar all the time unless troops are on our own shores.


The problem with the liberals is that this ISIS problem is directly related to Bush’s 2003 adventure NOT ANY OTHER US ME WARS!

The first GULF war in 1990-91 by the first PRESIDENT BUSH DID NOT DIRECTLY CREATE ARAB TERRORISM OR JIHADISTS


The ARAB world DID NOT GO CRAZY when the US freed Kuwait from Saddam's invasion WITH A MASSIVE ARMY!

The problem over that was created because the US troops remained in Saudi after the war too long and Bin Laden and a few fanatics didn’t like that because there is a Hadith that says no disbelievers should be in the holy cities in Arabia.

After 911 the US invaded Afghanistan the Muslim world DIDN’T GO CRAZY and create any massive terror

IT WAS ONLY THE CLEARlY UNJUST INVASION OF IRAQ IN 2003 THAT CAUSED THIS!

The previous two somewhat justified wars in Afghanistan and the first Iraq war I REPEAT DID NOT CREATE MUSLIM JIHADISTS!


This is 100 percent over the Bush war in Iraq of 2003

If the US invaded or led an invasion to wipe out ISIS

This would not create more Jihadists…that is a lie! IT MIGHT RAISE THE US REPUTATION IN THE MUSLIM WORLD

So their idea of “ALL THE WARS IN THE ME CREATED THIS PROBLEM is simplistic nonsense and a distortion…


THE ONLY WAR THAT CREATED JIHADIST WAS AND IS THE 2003 BUSH WAR

a reply to: Willtell

Awesome input and display of your thoughts and opinion....

I've gotta say, I agree with a vast majority of what you just said.


It takes guts to take different viewpoints, and walk away with your own hypothesis. Far too easy to fall into the mob mentalities that are so prevalent in the world.

yes its the invasion of Iraq that caused a lot of this... I agree don't be mad at me, bro but just ask yourself why does that guy have a british accent?

a reply to: Willtell

I think plenty of liberals would agree that it was mainly the most recent war that caused the up rise of these lunatics, I am failing to see your point here.


I think it is also debatable the previous wars had nothing to do with it as there has always been some group going by this name or that due to the war torn nature of the area.

I think the military industrial complex was caught flat-footed by the fall of the Berlin Wall, that is why you had US diplomats giving Saddam tacit approval on his invasion of Kuwait, and they have been behind much of this ever since.

I laugh at the merry-go-round of scaremongering, one week its Iran, the next its North Korea, the next its Al-Qaeda or ISIS, the next it is Russia or China. I think Al-Qaeda had lost its scaremongering power so ISIS had to be created.

Think of how much power and money would be lost by the MIC if peace were to break out, not to mention the dreaded spiritual growth.

a reply to: Willtell

Wait a second. According to what you just said the following statement is "simplistic, nonsense and a distortion"

"ALL THE WARS IN THE ME CREATED THIS PROBLEM"

But you say this statement is correct

"IT WAS ONLY THE CLEARlY UNJUST INVASION OF IRAQ IN 2003 THAT CAUSED THIS!"

So the only difference is that you put the blame on just one War and our staying there too long and others include all the other Wars together. But those statements are almost the same thing.

Think about it. One war then staying too long is pretty much the same as just blaming all the wars within that same time frame. The other wars could be interpreted as just us staying too long. You see what I'm saying??

Also, if your theory is correct and "staying too long" after that 2nd Iraq invasion caused all this then how is another invasion and us being there even longer going to help??? If we've already been there too long how is extending our time there going to help??? That doesn't make sense..

a reply to: mOjOm


The whole Muslim world wasn’t up in arms over that just that lunatic Bin Laden

Take away the 2003 IRAQ invasion and ALL its ramifications

Where would we be?

Sure all interventions have ramifications but here it’s 2003 invasion 90 percent and the others 10 percent ramifications


That’s all you have got to do.


Look at the GULF war in 1990-1

Where were all the Jihadists from then to 2001?

All you had was a few so called Al Queda

Recall the time after 911 even the Iranians were on our side

a reply to: nullafides

I just ask people to try to not block think all the time

Think for yourself and look at the facts and analyze them on your own logic and wisdom

a reply to: Willtell

That part is fine. I'm not saying that previous conflicts caused it. Let's say you're 100% correct that ISIS was caused by the 2003 invasion and the fact that we stayed too long. The part I don't understand is that if that is true,

How is staying in the middle east even longer to fight ISIS supposed to help??? That just makes us being there too long even longer.

and

Isn't saying "All those wars in the Middle East caused ISIS" almost the same as saying "The 2003 invasion and our prolonged stay there and other conflicts in the Middle East caused ISIS"???

By saying "All those Wars" doesn't have to mean the invasions before the 2003. It could mean the 2003 invasion and all the military action since then in that area.

a reply to: Willtell

Obviously, the U.S. occupation of Iraq greatly exacerbated the situation but it's not accurate to say it was the only reason for animosity against the U.S. in the region. There were terrorist attacks on the U.S. by Bin Laden in the nineties for starters. Many Muslims are upset about our long-term military support of Israel, our support of the Saudi royal family, our support of the Shah of Iran, our back handed involvement in the Iran/ Iraq war, our drone wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. The list goes on....

Actually if you look carefully at Afghanistan you'll realise that only 4 days after the invasion began a US Airstrike killed Taliban leader Mullah Omar's 10 year old son...


& the madness ensued from there...




& Mullah Omar had done some righteous things previous to this invasion and was well respected for hanging a rapist Warlord kidnapper, freeing two captive females in the process!!!




So yes, Afghanistan did erupt after the invasion and rightly so...

Because less than a week after the invasion they had already killed a well respected leaders little boy for no damn reason whatsoever!

a reply to: mOjOm

Who said go in there with all US troops

All I’ve ever said is that Obama, who suppose to be a leader do the same thing the first Bush did when Saddam invaded Kuwait

LEAD!

Certainly there probably should and will be some US forces but if people are too squeamish about a huge force then lead a coalition

Interesting you here Alex Jones and other conspiracy sites lamenting the Christians getting slaughtered but they always stop short of advocating a universal intervention to stop it based on their conspiracy dogma.

a reply to: DelMarvel

I didn’t say it was a reason for animosity. There will always be people with animosity towards the US

I am talking about armies of Jihadists!

A big difference

Now obviously other ventures have ramifications but a close study of history shows clearly it was the 2003 universally understood as AN UNJUST INVASION that is and was the catalyst for this problem and others.

TAKE AWAY THAT INVASION AND LOOK

From a conspiracy perspective it can be argued that they wanted to start this jihadist movement by doing the Iraq war

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

No argument with that

But nevertheless the whole Arab jihadist armies didn’t start over that


As you recall they also killed Khadaffi’s child in a much earlier raid over Lockerbie I think

Obama did put together a coalition for the airstrikes. The problem going forward is what our definition of victory would be and what our exit strategy would be. The architects of the first gulf war followed Sun Tzu and knew how to get out before going in. What are we going to do? Recapture Sunni Iraq? Or eastern Syria as well? What then? Turn it all back over to the Shiites in Baghdad who f'd it up in the first place? Maintain a permanent occupation?

originally posted by: Willtell
The old canards: The war machine always makes it worst you hear from the liberals and conspiracy folks like knuckle head Alex Jones but yet he will denounce ISIS for murdering Christians as if one side its all a conspiracy but the fact remains people are being slaughtered whether it is a conspiracy black op or not. They will acknowledge the reality of that but still keep to their conspiracy dogma to define reality ALL THE TIME.

Of course I understand these sites have to cater to their brainwashed readers

I don't understand this paragraph, where is the conflict? The war machine(the military industrial complex that is deeply entrenched in the political sphere and controlled by other powerful interests(although I would say that it is also a beast in its own right)) does seem to strive to perpetuate war; it's a war economy. This seems to be the case, this is what conspiracy theorists propose. How does that mean we can't be outraged by ISIS killing spree? Where is the conflict? The creation of ISIS may or may not be a conspiracy, but the killing is just as real either way. Both the supposed creators and the people doing the bloody work has blood on their hands in this situation.

Where is the "conspiracy dogma" in this case?

I just fail to see your point.

a reply to: DelMarvel

You make a good point, there’s no doubt there are complexities in this situation but that’s why Obama is paid well to be a president and leader and he should hire experienced diplomats not the amateurs he has there now.

a reply to: Willtell

THE ONLY WAR THAT CREATED JIHADIST WAS AND IS THE 2003 BUSH WAR

Well that's just a lie really. Historical revisionism at it's finest.

The first Gulf War created a VACUUM of power in the ME. Prior to that, women in Afghanistan were wearing pencil skirts, and studying to be doctors or lawyers. As a direct result of Western/Soviet intervention, the Middle East was thrown to the wolves so to speak.

The only people left to fill the void were the very religious and the extremists.

So no.

Every single conflict in the Middle East has created Jihadists, because the power vacuum allowed them to come into power, without opposition.

ETA: And not only that, but I can think of...at least 3 different occasions where direct intervention by 3 letter agencies, trained, supplied and created entire terrorist organizations to do their bidding. Notably the Iranian overthrow...

~Tenth

a reply to: Willtell

Difference being that the Mr.Omar & his Taliban are jihadi insurgents...

Mr.Ghaddafi was a world leader... Who probably enacted his revenge in a complete different manner of stratagem.



So we are in a disagreement slightly...


I'll readily admit, that OpLiberation was the focal point of insurrection across the Middle East...

However I would not dismiss the Afghani influence in such a rise of jihadist warfare!

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

I think it’s good when the conspirator thinkers come off their dogma in instances like ISIS

Not that I universally denounce dogma necessarily. Its automatic thinking that I am questioning. Block thinking.

You have to read the conspiracy sites closely, some of them at least, to see their conflict.

But as I said in my op, I understand they have their customers they have to placate


The conflict is this

If it’s all an obvious conspiracy then why denounce it?


Why on one hand does Alex Jones denounce murderous ISIS works than claim its all a conspiracy?


The point is we have to remain lucid in thinking, imo, including the liberal and conservative dogma, at times of these

Until we know for a certainty whats the deal

then it may not matter anymore