Printable View
NSA DocReveals ISIS Leader Al-Baghdadi is U.S., British and Israeli Intelligence Asset
NSA documents add more detail to plan to destabilize MiddleEast
According to a document recently released by NSAwhistleblower Edward Snowden, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, now theIslamic State, is an intelligence asset.
The NSA document reveals the United States, Israel, andBritain are responsible for the creation of ISIS.
http://www.infowars.com/nsa-doc-reve...ligence-asset/
Bump.
Do you really think a majority of US voters see the situation that way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spenni
Do we base our foreign policy of issues that are not widely known on opinion polls?
I think were at war and we need to fight the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Islamic State needs to crushed to the point where it can no longer exist as an entity. I don't think the 1st world has stomach for that type of war anymore though.
We crushed it in 2007. Look where we are now. As long as Sunnis in that region have significant grievances against their governments and the motivation to do something about those grievances, ISIS or groups like it will find ways to take advantage of those grievances. Without the support of the Sunni tribes, ISIS would be no more than yet another terrorist group.
We're going to end up fighting a conventional war with these guys at some point, aren't we? Not this year. Not next year. But before the turn of the decade, we're going to have to get into an honest to god land-war with these fuckers, and it's going to leave another huge mess behind, because the political situation in the middle-east is so broken and no one knows how to fix it.
You neocon chicken-hawk!
I seriously consider this a possibility, it will be bloody too if it happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I fail to see what a war accomplishes against ISIS. The problem is the support they enjoy, not their numbers. At the very least, we'd need to occupy the areas currently under ISIS control (including those in Syria); can't see how that could go wrong...
Since US congress has called things "armed conflict" for nearly 15 years, do you think they're going to make an official Declaration of War any time soon? :rolleyes: Besides, the Islamic State isn't recognized as a legitimate nation, so the 'traditional type' of War Declarations (against existing/legitimate nations) wouldn't work anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spenni
Hang on. The Islamic State (ISIS) didn't even exist in '07. If you're referring to 'the military surge' against Al Qaeda in Iraq, what ideology was crushed? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That's why I started a thread about the possibilities of WWIII. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Of course the US/west can't, and shouldn't occupy other nations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
But maybe we've been too slow in seeing how open, democratic, 'western' systems of education, information, finance, travel (etc.) can be used by terrorists to wreak havoc....because we believed that Free Markets and Free Trade could transcend any political--or religious--ideology?
That doesn't even work in domestic policy, so who's kidding whom?
And the relevance of free trade is?
Isn't it obvious? We think Free Trade can only influence international policies in positive ways. We're reluctant to admit the negative consequences, or Blowback.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Boko Haram loosely translates to "western education is evil"......yet, they use western technology to disseminate their message, and get new recruits. How do we counter that kind of ideology?
We're not going to shut down the internet just because a few terrorists have found ways to exploit the weakest link. At the same time, I don't think the west knows how to use technology that benefits people, without also giving terrorists the same benefits.
You're a living, walking non-sequitur.
I honestly was shocked CNN gave a 20 minute slot to the terrorist apologist claptrap from the (probably) terrorist linked organization CAGE.
Unless your suggestion is to try to defeat terrorism by abandoning "free trade" I'm not sure why you believe the notion of free trade is relevant to this particular problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
If you ask her what free trade is, she'll probably say something about banker salaries and and vaccines.
It's too bad there's so little reporting behind the chain of towns and cities that ISIS controls. I wonder if they have any idea how to actually run a state.
So far they have never been evicted by the locals in the parts that they rule. You also should keep in mind that with people expecting very little good from government at all it's easier to be acceptable government.
By which standards? Specify century and level of crappiness pls :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I think they should be expected to be more competent than eg. the Taliban at least.
I don't even know how well Taliban ran the country, actually.
It's not exactly fair to compare the Taliban, which ruled an incredibly undeveloped society, with ISIS, which controls parts of fairly developed Syria and Iraq. From the limited reports I've seen, ISIS created a clear hierarchy and various institutions necessary for rule. Which is to say that the intent to rule is there. But the competence of those institutions leaves a lot to be desired. It can get money to where it wants to go, but doesn't have the skill to turn that into policy successes. ISIS can provide food, security, and some level of schooling and healthcare, but not much else.
Isn't that pretty much the amount of government that is common in the parts they control? Food, security, education and healthcare?
Those services aren't particularly good, and there's the issue of having services that promote employment and stuff. :o
For a big number of Syrians especially those who don't like Assad, that's not a step back from what they had. And most of them were used to shut up to start with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It actually is, because there's no longer a functioning economy. I suppose there's more equality in those areas, but certainly not more productivity.
Up to either right now or quite recently IS was quite capable of funding the functions of a state, thus keeping a lot of people happy enough. As for the rest of them; they were always used to working around the state, not with it. If you think that doesn't still happen under IS, I urge you to think again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The problem for those opposed to IS, is that IS is not nearly as bad for a majority of Sunni muslims as we think it is. They may not necessarily like IS, but neither would they like the alternatives which may actually want to kill or deprive them for no other reason than that they are Sunni. After all a bit to the south millions of people live under a regime for decades already, that's barely marginally better than IS.
Another bump. Hard to believe this thread started nearly a year ago.....and there's still no consensus about what ISIS is, let alone what it means for domestic safety and/or international policies.
:bulb:
Pretty sure there is...
If there was "consensus", policy debates wouldn't be as contentious, would they? :bulb: