Noam Chomsky: America paved the way for ISIS

This of course is different from the standard Alex Jones type conspiracy that literally believes the US directly created and trained ISIS, not a viable theory since the information that they trained ISIS in Jordan does NOT offer proof that they knew( the US) that they were training ISIS and that they would turn into the monsters they did.
www.infowars.com...


Chomsky’s idea, something that myself and many here have been saying constantly is a more viable idea than the US directly created them and knew what they were doing which may be but the proof is limited.

Bottom line according to Chomsky, the ill advised, illegal, and immoral, and based on lies invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the administration of George Bush and Dick Cheney IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXISTENCE AND CREATION OF ISIS

LINK

There’s an interesting interview that just appeared a couple of days ago with Graham Fuller, a former CIA officer, one of the leading intelligence and mainstream analysts of the Middle East. The title is “The United States Created ISIS.” This is one of the conspiracy theories, the thousands of them that go around the Middle East. But this is another source: this is right at the heart of the US establishment. He hastens to point out that he doesn’t mean the US decided to put ISIS into existence and then funded it. His point is — and I think it’s accurate — that the US created the background out of which ISIS grew and developed. Part of it was just the standard sledgehammer approach: smash up what you don’t like.

In 2003, the US and Britain invaded Iraq, a major crime. Just this afternoon the British parliament granted the government the authority to bomb Iraq again. The invasion was devastating to Iraq. Iraq had already been virtually destroyed, first of all by the decade-long war with Iran in which, incidentally, Iraq was backed by the US, and then the decade of sanctions.

They were described as “genocidal” by the respected international diplomats who administered them, and both resigned in protest for that reason. They devastated the civilian society, they strengthened the dictator, compelled the population to rely on him for survival. That’s probably the reason he wasn’t sent on the path of a whole stream of other dictators who were overthrown.

Finally, the US just decided to attack the country in 2003. The attack is compared by many Iraqis to the Mongol invasion of a thousand years earlier. Very destructive. Hundreds of thousands of people killed, millions of refugees, millions of other displaced persons, destruction of the archeological richness and wealth of the country back to Sumeria.

One of the effects of the invasion was immediately to institute sectarian divisions. Part of the brilliance of the invasion force and its civilian director, Paul Bremer, was to separate the sects, Sunni, Shi’a, Kurd, from one another, set them at each other’s throats. Within a couple of years, there was a major, brutal sectarian conflict incited by the invasion.

You can see it if you look at Baghdad. If you take a map of Baghdad in, say, 2002, it’s a mixed city: Sunni and Shi’a are living in the same neighborhoods, they’re intermarried. In fact, sometimes they didn’t even know who was Sunni and who was Shi’a. It’s like knowing whether your friends are in one Protestant group or another Protestant group. There were differences but it was not hostile.

In fact, for a couple of years both sides were saying: there will never be Sunni-Shi’a conflicts. We’re too intermingled in the nature of our lives, where we live, and so on. By 2006 there was a raging war. That conflict spread to the whole region. By now, the whole region is being torn apart by Sunni-Shi’a conflicts.

The natural dynamics of a conflict like that is that the most extreme elements begin to take over. They had roots. Their roots are in the major US ally, Saudi Arabia. That’s been the major US ally in the region as long as the US has been seriously involved there, in fact, since the foundation of the Saudi state. It’s kind of a family dictatorship. The reason is it has a huge amount oil.

Britain, before the US, had typically preferred radical Islamism to secular nationalism. And when the US took over, it essentially took the same stand. Radical Islam is centered in Saudi Arabia. It’s the most extremist, radical Islamic state in the world. It makes Iran look like a tolerant, modern country by comparison, and, of course, the secular parts of the Arab Middle East even more so.

It’s not only directed by an extremist version of Islam, the Wahhabi Salafi version, but it’s also a missionary state. So it uses its huge oil resources to promulgate these doctrines throughout the region. It establishes schools, mosques, clerics, all over the place, from Pakistan to North Africa.

An extremist version of Saudi extremism is the doctrine that was picked up by ISIS. So it grew ideologically out of the most extremist form of Islam, the Saudi version, and the conflicts that were engendered by the US sledgehammer that smashed up Iraq and has now spread everywhere. That’s what Fuller means.

Killing Saddam and Gaddafi contributed to this mess. They were the one's keeping groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS from establishing power positions around the Middle East. Gaddafi warned us about this.

In particular, he argues that the 2003 invasion of Iraq provoked the sectarian divisions that have resulted in the destabilization of Iraqi society. The result was a climate where Saudi-funded radicals could thrive.

Of course, if you remove a countries leaders, beat the crap out of its infrastructure, and create a power vacuum it's generally not enlightened, open minded bunnies who then seize control.

a reply to: FearYourMind

I agree...That's Hillary Clinton and Obama's mess

a reply to: Willtell

One has to wonder why we are so concerned about evil dictators in the Middle East, but turn a blind eye to the dozens of others around the world. It's obvious we have other interest involved and I think we know what that is. For instance, Saudi Arabia beheads people left and right and rule their country no different than Saddam or Gaddafi did. I don't see us condemning them though. We all know why.

Much as it pains me to agree with Chomsky about anything, up to and including the color of the sky? Gotta say, I agree with him.

All too many of our actions in the ME have been in our own selfish interests... Which is forgivable, I suppose, that's what govts. do after all...

But all too many of them have come right back to bite us in the ass.

It's time and past, for the US to mind its own business, and let, for better or for worse, the ME solve their own problems...

I, quite frankly, am tired of seeing our sons and daughters coming home in boxes...and putting other peoples sons and daughters in boxes.

Bombs and missiles haven't brought peace to the ME, what makes anyone think more of the same will finally work?

What’s amazing is that the brother, Jeb Bush, of the person President George Bush who is responsible for the invasion that destroyed Iraq and made it vulnerable for ISIS is going to run against the person, Hillary Clinton, who as Secretary of State destroyed Libya by murdering Muammar Khadaffi, and one of them, (probably as reward for their fine work and associations) will be the next president.


Isn’t that wonderful?

Is that some kind of joke?

originally posted by: seagull
Much as it pains me to agree with Chomsky about anything, up to and including the color of the sky? Gotta say, I agree with him.

All too many of our actions in the ME have been in our own selfish interests... Which is forgivable, I suppose, that's what govts. do after all...

But all too many of them have come right back to bite us in the ass.

It's time and past, for the US to mind its own business, and let, for better or for worse, the ME solve their own problems...

I, quite frankly, am tired of seeing our sons and daughters coming home in boxes...and putting other peoples sons and daughters in boxes.

Bombs and missiles haven't brought peace to the ME, what makes anyone think more of the same will finally work?

Fine, but there’s something called Pandora’s Box

George Bush and Dick Cheney opened it to this HELL

Then was the time to debate about our boys and girls getting killed

It’s too late now brother

Pandora’s Box is wide open

And there’s NO WAY TO CLOSE IT!

a reply to: Willtell

My freind, it dates back further than that. ...and while I'll admit to being guilty of supporting this travesty in its very early days, I was intimately involved in the debate. My brother spent two tours over in that sand box from Hell.

...and it's never too late to rectify a mistake. ...and if you close Pandora's box, how is hope supposed to get out. Remember that hope was the last thing left in Pandora's Box.

a reply to: Willtell

Some here will blame it all on the extremist for the creation of ISIS, and rightfully so because extremist are extremist but had we not invaded Iraq ISIS would not be the monster it is today. America's obsession with the Middle East clearly created the world we live in today. The war machine loves war because it equals money and fighting the terrorists creates a never ending profit.

This all didn't just happen by accident.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Willtell

My freind, it dates back further than that. ...and while I'll admit to being guilty of supporting this travesty in its very early days, I was intimately involved in the debate. My brother spent two tours over in that sand box from Hell.

...and it's never too late to rectify a mistake. ...and if you close Pandora's box, how is hope supposed to get out. Remember that hope was the last thing left in Pandora's Box.

Of course you can rectify a mistake.

But all Im saying is that it may take a combination of an Abe Lincoln, John Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Jesus Christ to do it.

And all were going to get is Obama, Hillary, and Jeb…the three stooges!

The wound has to be cauterized and that includes more war…unfortunately.

The only thing the US can do, imo, better, is to this time get in, help destroy ISIS and get out when the deeds done.

This time the US will be a hero. No blow back if it’s done right like the first Gulf war…where the only mistake there was leaving the troops in Saudi

Of course it doesn’t have to be American troops only, everybody accepts that.

But you cant make a mess and just leave it

a reply to: FearYourMind

Your right. It’s about cooperation with the great power America.

Look at the people who went against America: Saddam and Khadaffi

Once you go against the US… if possible they get you

The only one they didn’t get was Castro, thank Russia for that.

The US is the modern Rome

a reply to: Willtell

It's not up to the West to solve it.

Many of the problems date from religious disagreements. Shia and Sunni. Only a Muslim leader of the caliber of a Saladin is going to have any sort of a fighting chance. Somehow, this leader must bring the factions together, or at least broker a peace between them.

The best way the West can help is by staying the [bleep] out of it. ...and quietly pray that someone of the sort comes forward when they need him/her the most.

Of course people that have had to survive living underneath the dictators that the West supported are going to be oddly brutal when the dictator is toppled. When you support the dictator you deserve the backlash after he is blown out of power.

ISIS is brutal but Chomsky is right, the US supported Saddam during the years of his repression then destroyed him and let loose the people he brutalized. Now the US won't put boots on the ground to clean up the mess they have started. Not a surprise given the result of Vietnam and a dozen other interventions.

This was not an accident of chance, and of course it was obvious that, by going in and destabilizing the entire region, we could waltz on in there and help ourselves to things like oil and rare earth minerals.

We have become a perpetual machine of war, greasing the wheels with the blood of not only those in the middle east, but also our own military. What does it matter to those disgusting opportunists, as long as the money keeps flowing in? War is profitable for business. Keeping one part of the population hating the other part, and vice versa, ad infinitum, guarantees a big fat bottom line for a few big fat bastards.

We Americans need a scary boogey man in order to keep giving our apathetic consent to such horrors as drone bombing and depeleted uranium munitions, a direct violation of the Geneva Convention. I'm shocked by those who watch the MSM and scream for more troops over in that hellish sand pit, as if 12 years of pointless death, mutilation and hatred haven't been enough for these cretins.

Naturally Chomsky is correct. Unfortuately......as history has proven, those who live by the sword, shall die by it. We've sown a harvest of blood, and eventually, we shall reap it.

a reply to: Willtell

Paving the way to get into the Middle East, like creating a pre-text to invade possibly, like 9/11?

originally posted by: Willtell
This of course is different from the standard Alex Jones type conspiracy that literally believes the US directly created and trained ISIS, not a viable theory since the information that they trained ISIS in Jordan does NOT offer proof that they knew( the US) that they were training ISIS and that they would turn into the monsters they did.
www.infowars.com...

Perhaps you might like to look at the interview Kerry Cassidy of Project Camelot did with a bloke from the military who thought he was doing good work for the right cause, cant think of the blokes name at the moment but there is brief description about each blower.

a reply to: Willtell

Yeah, a lot of people would say that's obviously true. If a city loses infrastructure, some people will gather into gangs and start to control and take from the rest of the population. Same for a country; same for a region.

Can all the blame be put on America? Haven't they had allies? What about the UK? They've been lock-step with every US military action even when international consensus and their own electorate said 'no.' Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Oman etc. All have aided military campaigns that contributed to the disintegration of infrastructure.

Much, much closer to home are the leaders in the Middle East. Decades of despots, dictators and all-out assholes. They've built palaces and funded their militaries and under-funded their own education systems. They run asymmetrical societies where girls finish school before their teens and their middle-classes go West for university educations.

Fertile soil for a nightmare like IS.

What is with the orange jump suits?

Where do they find this attire?

Why bother dress one in one when they are about to die anyways?

Do they just leave the bodies next to the ocean when they're done as in the video?

Where and how did they get the cherry picker onto the beach to zoom in from such a height?

And what is with the Hollywood style editing of the videos of late ?

Guantonamo has the orange jump suits don't they? who supplied those?

And why do they just sit there and take it, if I knew I was to die I would make it as hard as I could for them, wouldn't you?

ISIS aside, I really wish there was something like the South African reconciliation testimony in America, where Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, and dozens of others could apologize for their actions in Iraq. Powell himself said before 9/11 that there were no weapons of mass destruction on Iraq, the administration had to know that and pushed that knowledge aside to continue to work on their agenda. I recall the roomful of documents that Iraq provided to prove that all of their chemical weapons had been destroyed after the first Gulf War. When they presented that room and documents again when the GW Bush administration was asking for proof, it was explained away as (paraphrasing) 'old evidence' or 'the same old stuff'. But it turned out to be true, and Bush/Cheney and their people turned out as dishonest manipulators. The entire episode will be seen in history as a tragedy and a major scandal, but if they confessed now it may go a little ways in changing the present conditions.