@Simon_Jester and Channel72;
You're gaming a couple of logical fallacies; argument from ignorance, continually shifting the burden of proof to myself implying that the CIA-DAESH connection must be false because it hasn't been proved true, based on moving the goalpost of such proof to a high, theoretically attainable standard that is not easily attainable. That's the sort of empty argumentation that makes an informal fallacy fallacious.
Proof from direct sources is intuitively the highest. Only three aggregate parties likely have comprehensive accurate information on the impact of American aid upon DAESH, directly and via proxies. The 'CIA'/Nato/affiliated intelligence agencies, the Gulf Monarchies, and the DAESH. Of these three, the DAESH have the most incentive to out their 'CIA' affiliations, as it would be a huge propaganda coup if the expose were found reasonable by third parties. They won't; its too sophisticated a PR move to actually come clean while everyone else deceives for them to comprehend; on the other hand they do have an unwillingly embedded western journalist with them.
Such a coup would reflect and reinforce what appears to be happening on the ground, though. DAESH populism seems to be Youtube/social media sensationalism driven harder by each new American intervention. Those following jihadist sites are surely exposed to alternative news making the CIA-ISIL claim. Perhaps those aware of the link at some level take this as a divine sign; Allah has provided and compels even the most infidel of infidel, the CIA, to support jihad, therefore faith in DAESH is affirmed. The Gulf Monarchies wouldn't mind their proxies outing the U.S. after Biden outed them but spared the U.S.. Otherwise troublesome Gulf Wahhibists would see their elites as doing something useful for a change. Still, achieving the highest level of information at this time is very low. Its not dishonest to use other valid indicators.
If your put-up or shut-up counter argument is to be taken as war-neutral, then taken as the standard of discourse, then one of the primarly reasons for intervention presented, that DAESH is economically self-supporting from captured oilfields, is also invalid, and, that airstrikes have diminished DAESH's oil profiteering, is also invalid. Armed intervention is as serious if not more so than unmitigated contention of clandestine American intel agency support of DAESH. (To be fair, some in
the CIA know this is stupid, but apparently orders are orders).
The reasons for armed intervention must be clear and sound. This has not been deomonstrated with nearly the rigour and vigour opposition to intervention is shot up. How is that not to be taken as warmongers defending warmongering by chickenhawking rhetoric, reducing as much as possible the risks of exploring the rationale for armed intervention while playing up the need? There's a blind spot in your thinking, if you believe yourselves not to be warmongers.
The $3 million (plus) a day oil field figures are based on pre-capture data, and post-capture data relies on expert estimates. Actual DAESH oil output, revenues, and expenses are not conclusively known. There is no reason for DAESH to release this set of strategically valuable information. It would be very difficult for journalists to obtain enough of DAESH's own internal accounting data for a comprehensive picture.
One could unreasonably demand, in a fit of context-free empirical fundamentalism, that accurate post-capture data of DAESH oil production and earnings and disposition of those revenues be presented as the only proof of Islamic State economic viability before and after airstrikes. Those records possibly exist; if DAESH is to mimic a state, they would probably keep halfways accurate accounts. This demand clearly cheapens discussion while pretending to do otherwise, casting out the input of qualified and relevant oil industry experts in favour of information not attainable, defaulting to the argumentative skills of forum commentators who are far less qualified geo-political-economic analysts.
Yet that's what you do. Charges of 'conspiracy theory' don't mean anything to someone who regards 'conspiracy theory' as part of the news-as-entertainment genre, not the mark of Cain. Smears, intimidation, and empty rhetorical tricks are not arguments. Dismissing news links presented to deomonstrate a sampling of the credible information out there, says a lot not good about your attitudes given that this thread began in response to the murder of a journalist.
There is the confirmed Jordanian training camp story, the
eyewitness testimony of a former Al Qaida leader, the obvious problem of so-called 'moderate'
Syrian rebels aided long after their duplicity and immoderateness exposed, CIA helping coordinate clandestine Gulf Monarchy arms shipments to Syrian extremists, the extent to which non-military aid props the so-called 'Islamic State'. There are documented serious foreign policy proposals for a balkanization of the Middle East. There is the documented real history of the CIA's
fostering of mujahadeen to realize foreign policy objectives. There are the unresolved Continuity of Government provisions, and the peaceful diplomatic triumph of the
U.S. petrodollar made into a cause for war. Trace the origins of some of that smoke, and one finds a few dud leads, but also what appear to be active fires burning hot.
PNAC and its vision for a new, militarist American-dominated new century are a go. No plan survives contact with the enemy, so the saying goes, but recurrent themes of logistical base in Iraq and Middle Eastern balkanization do help explain current events beyond 'bad stupid stuff just happens'. Now that mid-term elections are over and it can't be made an issue, drone wars chieftain O-blam-aaa has condescended to approach Congress for a
mandate to act in Syria and Iraq, and approved plans to
double the numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq anyway. Thanks to DAESH and the hype machine surrounding it, this feels justified; in the context of history, its another disaster unfolding for America, its allies and their victims.
Its merely polite and politically correct to say it
strongly appears as if Western intel agencies are behind the DAESH, which furthers deep-seated, longstanding not-entirely-public interventionist foreign policy objectives. Its disingenuous to say its just stupidity, when the general vision of warmongering neoconservatives is being realized. Its not so polite but more honest to come right out and agree with responsible and informed news analysts that have concluded that DAESH is a product of covert Western intervenionism.
