Conspiracy theorists and Liberals are brain Dead on ISIS

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The Afghan war against the Taliban you are right did enflame somewhat the Jihadi ethic but in comparison to the Iraq war not very much.

On a basic level (911 whether it was a fraud or not, and I believe it was) at least the world could understand the US going into Afghanistan….But not IRAQ.

That’s why Bush and Cheney had to devise that phony WMB scam.

But my basic point is that the Liberals who are against ( in theory war intervention which btw I have sympathy with) and the conspiracy theorists( who I also often agree with) need to check their dogma when human beings are being slaughtered.

Now if it turns out this is all a scam…a Hollywood and CIA induced black op

Then so be it it wouldn’t be the first time.

a reply to: Willtell

Speaking of being completely clueless...


Middle eastern power struggles with the US go a hell of a lot further back than 2003.

Try more like from the 1930's and on. It all started with a little company called "Standard Oil". From there, the fight escalated into what we now have on our hands - middle eastern terrorist groups (otherwise known as organized rebellion groups).

World War 2 cemented the concept that the US and its allies needed to gain worldwide control of that little commodity known as 'oil'.

Do you actually believe that the creation and gifting of a country named Israel in 1948 was all from the goodness of our hearts by providing the Israeli's with somewhere to live ? It was a strategic chess move to place allied forces into prime territorial battle position.

But that's just one simple little example of the 6000 different tactics put into place since the pissing match began in the 1930's.



So before standing up on your soapbox throwing tomatoes at others, do some homework to make sure you actually understand fully what the hell it is you're talking about.

So far, this has been a really fun thread.
A star and flag to you, OP!

How can you dicount history completely? To blame exremist on the 2003 war is to completely be blind to what has gone on in that region for many centuries. However let us keep this fairly modern say post World War 2. The biggest cause of extremism and jihad in the Mid East was and remains the creation of the state of Israel. Western backed of course. Second the propping up of Monarchies and dictatorships (in partincular the Shah in Iran and Royal family in Saui Arabia) in the region by Western nations which continues to this day, Third , the Arab Israeli wars, UK/French invasion of the sinai, US intervention in Lebanon, Soviet invasion of Afganistan, etc. etc.

Here is a little history for you:
The support of the Royal Familily in Jordan by the US is why ISIS (way back before it changed names several times) was created. They wanted to take out the Royal family in Jordan and then move on to the other US backed monarchies in the Gulf States so that they could create a grand union that could take out Israel. They assasinated a US diplomat and that brough Jodans, Israels and US inteliigence and special ops down on them causing them to flee to Iraq.

Iraq post the first Gulf War was weak. It suffer Iranian Shia backed rebels in the south and Kurdish rebels in the north. Both protected by US no fly and no armour zones. When the group that would one day be known as ISIS arrived in Iraq Saddam though they would be of use to deal with Shia rebels in the south so he let them set up shop. He then found out they were also planning on gunning for him down the road so they went into hiding and came back out when the US invaded Iraq. So ISIS was result of several decades of US actions in the region. Not just the 2003 invasion. Of course the creation of Jihadist groups can also be trace to US actions in the region. Eveytime we act another group forms. Not a big secret.

a reply to: Willtell

You're still not making any sense. It's possible to be aware of conspiratorial reasons for the existence of a terrorist group and still be able to denounce them because they are killing people. The creators, funders and "soldiers" all have blood on their hands.

Where is the conflict?

originally posted by: Willtell

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

I would have to agree with you about the 2003 Bush War was one of the catalysts for the creation of ISIS; it wasn't the only catalyst. One important element that made ISIS possible was the Syrian Civil war which I suspect was encouraged by US/Israeli and UK agents provacateur in the hopes of toppling Assad, ridding the region of the Russian naval base and counter acting Iranian/Hezbollah influence in Syria and Lebanon.

I disagree however that putting US ground troops in the area is a solution. I've lived in and travelled in the area and can tell you that the US has always been hated and always will be hated in the region. Our presence there is like salt in old wounds. Rather, its time for the US to reduce its grimy footprint in the area and instead, lend support to those who chose to fight ISIS. As pointed out last weekend by some CNN talking head expert, ISIS is the Arabs fight, be they Iraqi, Jordanian, Syrian or whatever. Its time for the to step up to the plate and exercize self-determination. If we step in and fight their fight for them, they'll be no better off 20 years from now when another Caliphate nut job rears its ugly head. They need to get it together and fight for their homelands; therein lies the path to progress.

One thing you've said has puzzled me. You're not a Liberal, youre a progressive? I honestly didn't know there was a difference unless perhaps its a difference of degree on the leftist end of the political spectrum. I'm not on the American political spectrum so I don't care, but I do find it odd you made the differentiation.

But I'd add in closing that while I'm not on the American poltical spectrum, I am against any more US Military international adventurism unless and until such time as the Military Draft is reinstated and in a universal format. I won't go into the reasons why except to say that I think its past time that the people who cast votes have some real "skin" in the game. Maybe that would make them think twice about who and what they're voting for.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Willtell

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

Not just any world leader. Gaddafi was the only Arab leader with some braincells.

To answer some of these responses:


The Syrian, Libyan war and the Egyptian Arab spring may have been an NGO and intelligence inspired operation to destabilize the Arab countries. That’s a conspiracy theory I think has merit.

If it is true then the need to change American military and strategic initiatives is imperative and to pressure them to change by attacking ISIS makes a lot of sense. Its good though they have done some things such as air power but its not clear whether they are at all sincere...

Even though it may be fruitless if it is true that ISIS is an intelligence operation.

But what is necessary is to look at the whole picture to get an idea of what’s really going on such as the CFR attitude. Which is against the Obama doctrine...

That’s why I like Webster Tarpley as a conspiracy guy because he understands politics on all levels and doesn’t negate the levels of political reality for an all encompassing simplistic conspiracy theory that basically cripples action.

Bottom line as long as power exists we need to pressure power to do good and try to deny it from doing evil

The IRAQ war in 2003 was power gone mad

Other operations within moral precepts such as a concentrated coalition to attack and destroy forces that perpetuate genocide are a useful and necessary use of power, imo.

Of course no body believes this is a panacea since power has to always be pressured and watched closely to do what’s right.

The advocating of an international intervention against ISIS is therefore a necessary use of power to prevent genocide which seems in this case to be legitimate

On the other hand I was vehemently against the Libyan intervention since there was obviously and clearly nothing akin to this ISIS matter going on

As well Syria was another internal fight therefore the US has no business inside that civil war other than being a force for reconciliation.
(Why on one hand does it try to make peace in the Ukraine and not in Syria?)

But for the world to turn their heads on the innocent being slaughtered is to me a moral crime against humanity
when its based on some dogma within some conspiracy view or Liberal anti-war rhetoric.

a reply to: TonyS

A liberal is a wimpy progressive and a progressive is a tough liberal

Okay?


Actually the word liberal is just a word that has more mud on it than progressive

a reply to: TheLaughingGod



That’s where you misunderstand.

I'm not talking about merely denouncing... I'm talking about formulating a solution to the problem


Often these dense conspiracy and ideological positions paralyze action or paralyze supporting the right action

originally posted by: Willtell
But for the world to turn their heads on the innocent being slaughtered is to me a moral crime against humanity
when its based on some dogma within some conspiracy view or Liberal anti-war rhetoric.

You want people to enroll or what? Don't you think the USA as done ENOUGH CRAP over in the middle east?

Oh and, not that I disagree that the 2003 wasn't a lot of fuel for terrorism, I'm pretty sure that most tensions between the USA and the Islamic world started with Iran in the 1950's.

In 1953, Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq was overthrown by a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-organized coup, in what has been called "a crucial turning point both in Iran's modern history and in U.S. Iran relations." Many Iranians argue that "the 1953 coup and the extensive U.S. support for the shah in subsequent years were largely responsible for the shah's arbitrary rule," which led to the "deeply anti-American character" of the 1979 revolution.

Iran and United States relations
So the USA should offer support to the forces against the problem they created but not a full scale war.

Oh and, pelease stop blaming liberals for Christs sakes, hell your blaming the whooole ISIS movement on a CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENT.

Not that it really matters, I mean, it's a division tactic...and it works. No wonder because even I often feel like conservatives must be trolling to think such idiotic ideas but I've learned to understand that we, liberals and conservative, both need each other to make the best choices for everyone. If we want to stop the "enemy" that REALLY created ISIS we have to agree to disagree then maybe we could stop fighting between ourselves and focus on the task at hand.

Please stop making threads against whole groups if you want to aid in any way the problems you attest.

a reply to: Willtell

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.

Well, it´s way deeper than that. It all started after the death of their prophet and the succession , which created the Shiite-Sunni dispute. And it´s continues today.

The division of Islam into Sunni and Shiite branches goes far back in Muslim history to the aftermath of the death of the Prophet Muhammad. Its repercussions have rippled through history, with periods of peace and periods of war. With the recent turmoil, the conflict between Shiite and Sunni is once again a driving force behind events in the Middle East. Taken from an article on 2007

Chronology: A History of the Shiite - Sunni Split

And here is an article that has some interesting facts.

The crisis in Iraq is tectonically important. Fighting between the Iraqi government and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (or, as it's abbreviated, ISIS) is tearing Iraq apart. The conflict has the potential to transform the politics of the broader Middle East.

It's also extremely complicated. So we've broken down the 11 most important things you need to know to understand the issue, starting from the beginning.

Written on June 13, 2014 11 facts that explain the escalating crisis in Iraq

Peace

a reply to: Seed76

No it all started with Adam and Eve and the fall of man

a reply to: Willtell

Well it certainly muddies up the situation, but I'm sure most of us agree that there are incredibly powerful interests and that it would be in our interests as the people to find out exactly what they're up to and if wrong eventually try to put an end to it.

I read about solutions on ATS almost daily, as a "think tank" we've got mad(in more than one way:saint ideas here.

There's levels of compartimentalization and different levels of hierarchies tied to this, with levels of understanding or perspectives also tied to this. This geopolitical chess game plays out on many different levels with actions reflecting the understanding of the game that the people of that particular level of the game has. National governments and their administrations are not on top of this hierarchy.
For example, you'll have ISIS and their perspective, maybe some of them will understand that they are tools being used, others not, but they're essentially useful idiots. Then we might have CIA operatives handling senior ISIS operatives, and they'll be handled by a director who might report to some shady persona that represent certain interests. And up the hierarchy we go. And up the hierarchy we should trace them, as far as we can.
To the proverbial capstone eye.

Normal people will go, well, let's kill them. While a lot of us on ATS will go, 'well, yeah, ISIS needs to be dealt with but who is truly calling the shots? Let's dig that up, let's try to expose that if there's anything to it'.

a reply to: theMediator

I don’t know how to respond to your post.

Sure Iran and the US has problems going back to the first Ayatollah when the Iranians took hostages and even before that with the overthrow of Moseddegh


But where taking about the war in Syria and Iraq not Iran

In fact in this ISIS fight Iran is a reluctant ally

Iran has been the biggest beneficiary of the stupid Iraq war of 2003 since it initiate a Shia government in Iraq where now they are close allies

That just goes to show you the utter stupidity of the Iraq war of 2003


I wouldn't worry about me marginalizing Liberals and conspiracy thinkers for I am both a liberal progressive an a conspiracy 911 truther

You claim that liberal sites that question Alex Jones are "Brainwashed liberals", but people who follow Alex Jones blindly are some of the most brainwashed people out there.

Alex Jones theories are such complete hogwash, based in incredibly bad interpretations of mostly stuff that doesn't have anything to do with what he's talking about that it's amazing anyone with half a brain even listens to him.

He rants and raves so much, and his presentation is so poor, that even when he has valid points, they get lost among all the rhetoric and plain old misinformation that he presents.

It's amazing to me that millions of people hang on Alex Jones' every word, unquestioning and unwavering in their faith in what he says.

The only thing that makes sense about Alex Jones as to why he's still on the air is that he's part of the coverup being purportrated by the elites.

I can guarantee that if Alex Jones is ranting about a conspiracy, there IS no conspiracy. If there were a true conspiracy, we would never hear about it.

If you really, really want to look at who's running the show, look at the list of the 0.01%ers. IE, the 1% of the 1% (not just the Americans - look world wide), and see who you've never heard of. Look for people who have control over large parts of their respective industries, that you never, ever hear anything about. The ones who are in the news every day are a diversion. If you're trying to manipulate events from the shadows, you're hardly going to make yourself known.

There are plenty of conspiracies out there that can be revealed on your own research, without listening to the likes of Alex Jones.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: Willtell

Well it certainly muddies up the situation, but I'm sure most of us agree that there are incredibly powerful interests and that it would be in our interests as the people to find out exactly what they're up to and if wrong eventually try to put an end to it.

I read about solutions on ATS almost daily, as a "think tank" we've got mad(in more than one way:saint

ideas here.

There's levels of compartimentalization and different levels of hierarchies tied to this, with levels of understanding or perspectives also tied to this. This geopolitical chess game plays out on many different levels with actions reflecting the understanding of the game that the people of that particular level of the game has. National governments and their administrations are not on top of this hierarchy.
For example, you'll have ISIS and their perspective, maybe some of them will understand that they are tools being used, others not, but they're essentially useful idiots. Then we might have CIA operatives handling senior ISIS operatives, and they'll be handled by a director who might report to some shady persona that represent certain interests. And up the hierarchy we go. And up the hierarchy we should trace them, as far as we can.
To the proverbial capstone eye.

Normal people will go, well, let's kill them. While a lot of us on ATS will go, 'well, yeah, ISIS needs to be dealt with but who is truly calling the shots? Let's dig that up, let's try to expose that if there's anything to it'.

Absolutely.

I posted the other day the strange reality that the CFR and those who are suppose to be the PTB are at least in public totally against Obama’s plan against ISISI

The top man there wrote an oped and said Obama should make a deal with Syria and then fire his foreign policy advisors!



Leslie Gelb
This Is Obama’s Last Foreign Policy Chance

www.thedailybeast.com...

Check it out

Obama is going against the behind the scene masters.

And unless their running a scam and only pretending to be against his policies then Obama is isolated in Washington.

Also the head of the CFR Richard Haass feels the same way that Obama’s policy is fubar

So what in the hell does that tell us?

originally posted by: Willtell

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

I don't feel like re-reading all this but I surely hope you aren't lumping Alex Jones in with "liberals."

I was passionatley opposed to the Iraq war and the continuation of failed neocon Middle East policy under Obama.

However, I think we have a moral responsibility to arm and support the Kurds after all the support they have given us and after how often they've been shafted. Israel is often described as the only "western" style nation in the region but so is Iraqi Kurdistan. We need to get weapons and supplies directly to the Peshmerga and stop trying to send it through the corrupt government in Baghdad. We also need to crack the whip on Turkey as a member of NATO to get on board with this.

You see Obama can’t have all these powerful people mad at him at the same time

The Zionist, some of the military and now the heads of the CFR…Something is fishy.

Obama’s got to be making somebody happy: the CIA, DIA, or SOME POWERFUL AGENCY IN AND AROUND GOVERNMENT HAS TO BE GIVING HIM ORDERS

He ain't no John Kennedy


Or somebody’s running a scam

a reply to: DelMarvel

I apologize for the long op. I hate reading them myself. That’s why I try to write in short sentences.

But no Im only comparing Jones and the Liberals in terms of their opposition to intervention in the ISIS matter