there’s no question that the u.s. and the sauds are directly responsible for the rise of the islamic state. they supplied training and resources,
they looked the other way when heavy weaponry was appropriated in iraq, and they misled the world about the nature and intentions of the “moderate
this was all part of a game plan put forth in the mid-90’s, and enacted in order to secure oil, lithium, and opium; or at least to make sure the
russians didn’t plant their stake first. since # went off in libya without a hitch, i guess it was thought that assad would be equally easy to shunt
down the useless dictator chute, even if the sarin hoax was a bust. after that, it would be simple enough to ensure that the backwards stooges set up
to do the dirty work would be dispersed/liquidated.
meanwhile, the gross mismanagement of the iraq “rebuilding” effort created a massive power vacuum in the region. so when it turned out that the
“moderate rebels” were deadly earnest, well-organized, and battle ready as # (thanks in part to the western operatives who trained them up), the
west got caught with its pants down.
the existence of an islamic state as put forth by the caliphate is predicated on having a physical territory to rule, and in a literalist belief in
their flavor of an end-times narrative. in that way, they differ from al-qaeda, an entity requiring no geographic territory, nor an apocalyptic remit.
You begin your essay by summarizing the confusion that many people experience on this topic, and you cite comments by Major General Michael
Nagata, the Special Operations Commander for the US in the Middle East. He is on record as admitting, I believe in a closed-door session, that he
didn’t understand the appeal of the Islamic State. Specifically, he said “We have not defeated the idea. We do not even understand the idea.”
there appears to be a common delusion in the upper echelons of the u.s. military and its corporate associates that humanity as a whole shares their
venality and cynicism. it seems absolutely beyond them to imagine that their opponents are sincere in their expressed (if completely abhorrent)
beliefs. it’s that kind of myopic arrogance that’s going to cost every single one of us in the long run.
but the kind of redirection you see in the press and the obama administration probably has another source. why is it verboten to link isis with islam?
why are euphemisms devoid of any mention of islam employed when discussing isis, despite the fact that they are extremely open about their beliefs and
practices? why are we told that “extremist” violence is a result of poverty when the facts absolutely contradict this assertion? why do we refuse
to believe them when they explicitly explain their faith-based reasoning behind spreading the dar al islam through violence and atrocity, and why does
this absurd denial constitute the default political stance of the west? most importantly, why are we not going to see boots-on-the-ground combat in IS
Their view—and the view of jihadis everywhere, really—is that Muslims are under attack by a Crusader West. So if we say, “All right,
we’ll take you up on that” and crush them in battle, that would confirm their narrative for other Muslims who are already inclined to believe that
the West is at war with Islam…
...The idea is that if we don’t walk on eggshells until the end of history as we fight jihadis, taking great pains to deny any link between the
chaos they cause and the doctrine of Islam, then we’re doomed to provoke more-mainstream Muslims into choosing the wrong side in this conflict.
Thus, when President Obama talks about this problem, he insists that we are at war not with Islam, Islamism, or even Islamic extremism but with
generic “extremism” and with a “perversion” of a glorious religion...
...I certainly don’t think that “mainstream” Muslims are people we have to worry might choose the wrong side in this conflict. But I think that
there is a particular type—and it’s quite segmented by sex and by age, as well—of people who are spoiling for a fight. They really are waiting
for confirmation of this “clash of civilizations” narrative. They’re a small percentage of the Muslim population. Granted, the Muslim population
is 1.6 billion, so even a small percentage is a lot of people. But it’s those people—a very targeted demographic—that we’re talking about.
Harris: Understood. But, again, let’s spell out the concern. If we’re talking about 1 percent, we’re talking about 16 million people. That’s a
huge insurgent army, even if it’s spread over 50 countries. Is that what you’re picturing?
that’s almost definitely what the u.s. and her allies are picturing. like dr. frankenstein, the west has created a monster it has no will to
understand, and absolutely no means to restrain. the only solution in the offing seems to be to let the caliphate bleed out from drone strikes and
privation. but it looks like nobody’s sending gift baskets to the yazidis, the shiites, and the other hundreds of thousands of people who daily pay
the price while we wait for the monster to die.
Report Reveals US "Created" ISIS As A "Tool" To Overthrow Syria's President Assad
The U.S. Government Supplied ISIS’ Iconic
Deep in Iraq That C.I.A. and the Islamic State Are United
In policy shift, U.S. will send commandos into Syria to advise
How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels
Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.
Rebel Arms Flow Is Said to Benefit
Jihadists in Syria
What ISIS Really Wants
'Jihadi John': The bourgeois terrorist
Pakistan's Middle Class Extremists
POVERTY, EDUCATION, AND TERRORISM
edit on 14-11-2015 by ATODASO because: (no reason given)