It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stopping Daesh with Jobs Programs, and other nonsense.

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Nine Months Ago


State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf actually said “we cannot win this war by killing them [ISIS], we cannot kill our way out of this war” yesterday on MSNBCS’s “Hardball.” Instead, her solution is a jobs program and training for all those jihadis.


This was blown out of context a bit by opponents or critics, obviously. She is speaking about long term objectives in lowering radical recruitment in the region, but to me it's odd it's even a talking point. It's almost as if they want to offer up weak points to encourage a commoner to suggest themselves, 'no we should be fighting them instead, doing more than we are'.

Of course a lot happened since then.

Paris Attacks - November 2015

Recent Developments

Atrikes against Daesh

As of 12 mins ago, raids-arrests made in Paris, second wave of airstikes launched.

Everyone is aware of the events which have unfolded in France. Since then, there was a scare at a Dutch-Nederlands sporting match, and a threat made on an Air France plane. All seem to coincide with the earlier attack this week in Paris. A large blast injured and killed ~100 people in Nigeria believed to be Boco Haram, not directly related to France but timed impeccably, although the Nigerian President recently made comments about them being nearly defeated.

In the Air Strikes in France, sources inside Raqqa claim that there were no civilian casualties, even though described as an 'insane night' , in fact, it seems no active Daesh targets were hit:


Activists say abandoned ISIL bases hit in city suburbs with no civilians or fighters as France carries out air strikes.

1-Some people say there is a lot of civilians got killed by #France Airstrikes we want to confirm until now NO civilians got killed #Raqqa


Reportedly some supply lines and border check stations have been hit. But overall impact is minimal from what activists on the ground are reporting. Im curious if the intent was to damage Daesh as much as possible, or was it just a token act, retribution for the gift of terror.

NATO claimed that these targets were planned for some time, France setting off for the campaign was just a matter of two friends ready to take care of business, and the scorn friend says "Hey, you don't mind if I give it go this round do you?" and of course no one would suggest otherwise. France gets to see its planes boom off into the distance, ready to lay waste to Daesh targets... with nothing/nobody in them.

With a second wave of airstrikes supposedly underway I gather we will see how effective these are very soon.

Refugees - Caught between a stoning and a fist of contempt.



"Raqqa is devastated. Raqqa has endured the unbearable and we live in fear under ISIL's dictatorship.

"A lot of people fled the the city. In fact, most refugees heading to Europe are from Raqqa. That is how desperate they are to leave here. People are fed up here and just want to live normal lives.

"Our lives are all under threat. ISIL controls every aspect of our lives and we are not allowed to expose the truth.


Source

I know some are quick to judge those fleeing Syria, I was myself, after watching videos of young men in huge groups trekking across Europe looking for safe havens, making demands for better food, accommodations, video of water being rejected. The media has painted some odd pictures in the last couple months. I havent looked into this as much as Id like to have, instead getting sidelined on other facets of the story.

One thing is clear though, if you look at the sate of Syria, Raqqa especially and the rise of Daesh it's clear why people are fleeing. And by all means, some undesirables will group into those who flee. Like every mass exodus there will be criminal elements or radicals who slip in, with ulterior motives or at least undesirable, opportunistic goals, but alas, you can't paint every refugee with the same Brush.

It's ironic that out of all the Western medalling in the Middle East, Iraq & Afghanistan, Libya and airstrikes carried across sovereign, foreign lands, or raids carried out the same, finally we have a case of a country in dire circumstances, with its people displaced, asking for help, at one point an army trying to fend off a dictator (Assad) and yet no direct Western intervention, just arms and training which inevitably ended up in the hands of the real enemy. [They are real yeah?]

edit on 18-11-2015 by boncho because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Conclusion - How the MidEast was won.

Right now you are probably wondering, 'whats with all the rambling, whats the point of it all'. Id love to have provided a dozen or more sources, and a more cohesive picture of what Ive been seeing. Often in the past with Islamic extremism I was very quick to say, Islam, for it to be viewed properly by Western people's, for it to be legitimized, it needs to publicly declare these extreme acts wrong, object to these horrible crimes against people. Do something, say something.

And maybe it's more of the media's fault, although Im not entirely sure. In the past there has been some push back from the reasonable ones who mirror the radicals, but a lot of people have never felt Islam has stood up enough against the radical sects.

Muslims should declare Jihad against Terrorism - Islamic Scholar

I could provide dozens and dozens of links similar to this. And while in past instances of terror vs western nations or western interests, it was possible to find the odd Islamic cleric who supported these deplorable acts, and even is today, the number seems fewer. The Muslims who identify with Daesh are few and far between, and finally there is a vocal number publicly stating this and making waves, enough for them to be heard across the world.

Which begs the question is it really something that naturally developed around the world, the current situation. In a way it's almost too perfect, and it was almost the biggest blunder [or was the biggest blunder] the West has every engaged in. This last decade and a half has been a nightmare politically, spurring hate throughout the ME, directed at the West. From 9/11, first sympathy rained down on the US, then confusion, as the leaders pushed not only a reasonable retaliation, to purge Afghanistan of rebel elements, but as it continued into Iraq. In fact it polarized an entire country against each other, and almost the entire world against one nation.

Eventually the West returned home, though it's bases in the ME were bigger and bolder than before they had gone in. more and more political connectedness to the region. With a new subversive war against Libya and a subversive proxy war vs Assad, the region began to destabilize again. Around the same time a new stronger terror group is being formed. IS, or ISIS, or Daesh. And when this new uprising of radical Islam began to take hold, the arrogance of its leaders made regular Muslims stand up and say 'That's not our Caliphate, these people do not speak for us'.

When the world looked around to who was going to help with it, it's almost as if the Elephant in the room is, 'well, you did just leave the region and all, and look how that turned out.' It certainly wasn't expected for the US to go back into the region. Hell, the President that came after the War President, was partially elected on a plan to remove troops form the region.

So in a perfect turn of events, we have a boondoggled war, one that sent back a ton of work to key oil contracting companies. A large base of operations built in the region. Two [ME] Presidents with ties back to the West. Yet enough hate from locals that a rising radical group would have little trouble enlisting young recruits.

More recently the World, in a state of apathy towards this problem in Syria and surrounding countries, of course doesn't want to call on the World Police, look what they just finished in Iraq/Aghanistan. No one wants that, not unless it gets really bad, unless it's dire.

The region is so bad that any normal life is impossible by the local people. They begin to flee, and bring with them the problems of a country escaping its shadows. The wheels turn, we have large attacks happening up close to Western allies in the middle of Europe, Europe is furious. The right wing voices are pushing against the refugees, pushing for war or drastic measures, not so drastic to alienate the common pragmatic. The left wing is looking for solutions, to help those in need and even offering up useless solutions. And suddenly the West is starting to look like a good solution again. By whatever means they will participate.

The world will always be a stage, theatre of the grandest design. Sometimes I wonder how much is entirely by design and what is decided on the fly. Is it improvised and altered as they go along, or was it all relatively planned and executed not far off the design.

The way things look to be unfolding, it seems like Daesh will continue, even if its just a movement. But people seem to be coming together, the right wing is backing down just a bit, enough to open arms to refugees, and the left is stepping up just enough to potentially authorize another war. They just need a stronger villain. Quite close, almost there, you have most of Islam agreeing. You just need a little more.

If Daesh became just a bit more powerful, if refugees could be seen as just a bit more human. Just a little more integration, a society which has merged from all the worlds' middle class, where social and racial barriers are broken down, and there are bad guys everyone can finally agree on. At first, its Daesh and similar outcasts -anyone who adopts them, and then it's enemies against the new modern world. The world where every race is multicultural... together.

But with the recent track history the likelihood of Western troops going back on the ground is slim, so very slim. Unless of course the people asked for it. Maybe the masses would pressure their governments to do something, to spur action and consequence, if only to stop the influx of all these refugees, to prevent terror from being wrecked across the foreign lands as well as home. If nothing is done soon, this is going to get much worse.

As Richard Branson speaks about a new global drug policy shift, and the signs can be seen around the world, illegal narcotics are in favour of being decriminalized, it makes you wonder, 'why give up this control?' the UN especially, has pushed world governments for the last 100 years to instil this local control against the populace, in the form of bastardizing such a normal human act of consumption of food/chemicals/medicine.

With CISPA passing, it makes you wonder if this change in thought, this paradigm shift is entirely planned. One thing leads to another to another, all interconnected by some means, even if its just the smallest amount, even if it wasn't planned exactly as this, not entirely, but there was some rough design events have adhered to as they unfold.

One means of control has been lifted, while new technological forms of control are installed. The bridge to multiculturalism is being strung up across the world, as much as possible, while displaced cultures spread with fervour. Enemies are beginning to look like real enemies again, and Islam, is beginning to look like any other religion, with Daesh as its weird offshoot, the KKK or WBC to the Christian opposite. Eventually, a world of mixed middle class, all rooting for the same leaders, all jeering the same enemies.

A new world.
edit on 18-11-2015 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:49 AM
link   
There is no real multiculturalism, there are just more separate groups establishing their own jurisdiction, eventually tearing a country apart like Babel.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
There is no real multiculturalism, there are just more separate groups establishing their own jurisdiction, eventually tearing a country apart like Babel.



It's funny to read that. I have been saying it since the mid 90's, but we were told time and time again that it does work, just give it time...

And now we see just how segregated countries are, their own citizens are blowing innocent people up for things happening in the lands their families come from.

And it will just get worse the more people pretend forcing culturally opposed people together, is some paradise that just needs a little effort to kick off..



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: abe froman

False.
I live in an extremely multicultural society. Is is all lovey dovey? Nope. But we aren't killing each other. People don't have to "assimilate" to coexist. That is a fallacy.

edit on 11/18/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

We don't all get to live on the mothership Phage.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

Yeah. I guess not.
It is getting sort of crowded. But we're used to it.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So give us back our cows! And also the ruminants!



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 04:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: boncho

One thing is clear though, if you look at the sate of Syria, Raqqa especially and the rise of Daesh it's clear why people are fleeing.

Let me rephrase that. Coming from a war country just 25 years ago it is totally and completely NOT CLEAR to me and neither my fellow countrymen why all of those millions of combat able men are fleeing.

That is not normal, never was normal, never will be normal whatever spin media puts on it.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I do as well. It's not exactly assimilation, it's kind of a hybrid form of coexistence. However, the normal racial tensions kind of break down when people shop in other cultural shops, use their businesses, take their business, etc.

Yes there are still problems, but overall everyone seems to get along. It would not surprise me if there was a larger directive to create similar homogenous society around the world. At one time it was advantageous to separate the world and keep that way, today not as much.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

False.


People ARE killing each other.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Exitt

originally posted by: boncho

One thing is clear though, if you look at the sate of Syria, Raqqa especially and the rise of Daesh it's clear why people are fleeing.

Let me rephrase that. Coming from a war country just 25 years ago it is totally and completely NOT CLEAR to me and neither my fellow countrymen why all of those millions of combat able men are fleeing.

That is not normal, never was normal, never will be normal whatever spin media puts on it.







Assad wants to conscript anyone of age. While they had a decent resistance in the beginning, with Russia help, and fighting on multiple fronts the FSA is pretty much done. After Daesh rose to power in the region, it pushed in the weaken territories that FSA was holding, so now the options for many is fight for Assad, or fight for radicals.

They choose to flee. They should have stayed and fought Assad and the fundi-terror groups, but what can you do? Any videos or media on the subject has been documenting just how bad the region is, how much it fell apart in the last few years. This is initially what the US wanted to prevent. They were expecting to oust Assad just a year after the civil war happened, but were at a very weak point politically after Libya and two long drawn out wars in the region.

Was it all planned from day 1? The way it developed doesnt seem like it. Surely some of the arms they dropped in the region ended up with the radicals, and it does give the West a much better position politically. But I don't think they wanted to lose that region to Assad no matter what.

With the refugees fleeing the region, with Assad pushing for control, eventually its going to come to a head. I wouldn't be surprised if the West was hoping for Assad to fall to the radicals only so they could go in and clean up later.

This is a very narrow view into whats going on overall. With the refugees flooding into Europe and soon, possibly North America as well, it shakes up the global population a bit more. I believe that the end game for world powers is to dilute every culture, with international business/trade-trade agreements, TPP, and legal framework, CISPA, etc With all of this, homogenize the world population.

The long gone, a very long game, to have a mixed middle class around the world. We had in the west, and most of the world actually, the State Authority, as the Law, the Official Voice, and the enemy to society was drugs and misfits. It was a terrible system though, it failed to work. Created more problems than it was worth. As this era comes winding down, there are 1/3 up to a possible 2/3 American Adults who have criminal records.

Source

The 2/3 figure is not in the article. However, I remember looking at arrest rates and a number of other factors, and realized the actual rate might be higher. This was awhile ago. But it was based on number of arrests per year, number of people currently in the system, and number of people who would be arrested in a lifetime. I do stress 'possible'.

In any case, the era of drug wars and anti-heroes, was a production built around the idea of justice. Layers, judges, police, jails, jailers, all of it, part of a large act. One that drew billions of dollars of taxes every year, which pitted popular culture against the law/government, and in turn the government got willing actors and control over almost the entire populace. Why?

Because people play into their parts. If spread the worlds population out tomorrow, evenly, in a truly functional multicultural world, you would of course still have resisters. Like always, those against the status quo. And in this case, it would be racists, extremists, radicals, similar to what we have now. But if the focus of the world, shifts from its traditional power structures [this is right and that is wrong] than you have new actors, acting new parts.

Where does the control element come from? Why leave a system of control without a new one to follow up? I think the digital rights powers in law, not just that but the direct power that is now obtainable by communications, the legal act on black markets is not needed like it was previously. There is enough comfort in the ability to control with data, that the larger anti-drug policies [which were endorsed, encouraged, demanded by the UN and world communities], and without needing that, there will be a shift to a new digital control power structure.

Pirates and copyright violators are the new drug dealers, and radicals and terrorists are the new drug kingpins, mafias. A new world that directs the anti-social crowds into new markets, into new anti-government movements. And then the justice system adapts and this becomes the new fight. Disgruntled kids look to a new side of crime, anti-copyright, racism, radical movements, etc. Something for everyone. Just like today, but shifted slightly.

I don't think it's happening overnight, I think its the next step in the inevitable evolution away from the current dichotomy.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join