IS crisis in Iraq and Syria

[Simon_Jester]

It's also nice how you insultingly talk about the illiteracy of Afghanis and Iraqis as if it's all the same. Iraq has a ridiculously high literacy rate (over 80%) thanks to Saddam Hussein. Iraqis grow up to be doctors and engineers, not fucking peasant farmers. Iraq is in a totally different league than Afghanistan in terms of education, and I have no doubt IS will find the manpower and skill to work the oil fields (some of the people who support ISIL may have fucking designed some of those oil fields...), unless we keep harassing them with airstrikes.

Uh, Stas' point is that being a narcostate that runs on opium poppies requires only illiterate and ignorant peasants. Whereas running a petrostate requires either that the population supporting you be educated, or that you be able to hire foreign technical experts.

I'm not clear on the question of how well ISIL is getting along with Iraqi people who know how to work with oil extraction, whether that educated demographic is backing them fully as you say.

[Channel72]

Turkey has authorized a "boots-on-the-ground" military campaign to fight ISIS in Syria.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/02/world/mea ... ?hpt=hp_t2

Gaziantep, Turkey (CNN) -- Turkish lawmakers voted Thursday to authorize military force against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, joining a growing international coalition against the Islamist militants as they continued to capture territory just south of Turkey's border.

The Turkish Parliament voted 298-98 to not only to let the country's military leave its borders to battle ISIS but to eliminate threats coming from any terrorist organization in Iraq and Syria, starting Saturday.

It is a big shift for Turkey, a NATO member, which until now offered only tacit support to a U.S.-led coalition of about 40 nations going after ISIS in Iraq and Syria in various capacities.

The mood of Turkey's leaders changed in recent days, with ISIS on the nation's doorstep and tens of thousands fleeing across its border. Turkey's Prime Minister asked Parliament to consider military action this week, submitting a motion declaring that Turkey was seriously threatened by the chaos in Syria and Iraq, where ISIS has captured land and is trying to establish an Islamic caliphate.

A possible threat to an ancient tomb -- located in Syria but considered a Turkish enclave -- also appeared to be a factor. Reports had emerged that ISIS surrounded the tomb of the grandfather of the founder of the Ottoman Empire.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Wednesday dismissed reports that ISIS had surrounded the site. But the motion before Parliament mentioned increasing security risks to the white marble mausoleum.

As part of the Treaty of Ankara in 1921, which ended the Franco-Turkish War, Turkey was allowed to keep the tomb despite its location in Syria, to place guards at it and to raise a Turkish flag over it.

Turkey's decision on military action came a day after newly appointed NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg stressed at his first news conference that the defense alliance was committed to protecting Turkey if it comes under attack.

[Channel72]

It's also nice how you insultingly talk about the illiteracy of Afghanis and Iraqis as if it's all the same. Iraq has a ridiculously high literacy rate (over 80%) thanks to Saddam Hussein. Iraqis grow up to be doctors and engineers, not fucking peasant farmers. Iraq is in a totally different league than Afghanistan in terms of education, and I have no doubt IS will find the manpower and skill to work the oil fields (some of the people who support ISIL may have fucking designed some of those oil fields...), unless we keep harassing them with airstrikes.

Uh, Stas' point is that being a narcostate that runs on opium poppies requires only illiterate and ignorant peasants. Whereas running a petrostate requires either that the population supporting you be educated, or that you be able to hire foreign technical experts.

I'm not clear on the question of how well ISIL is getting along with Iraqi people who know how to work with oil extraction, whether that educated demographic is backing them fully as you say.

ISIL will summarily execute anyone who doesn't cooperate with them - they don't need to "get along". They've already executed doctors who refused them medical treatment. They have access to a highly educated population who they can coerce. Also, they can just hire contractors from anywhere to come help them.

[Channel72]

I agree that the IS has to go. I just question the possibility of that. Face it, secular forces are in complete disarray. Iraq, formerly one of the most secular places, is half-IS, half Shia islamist rump state about to fall completely under Iran. Syria, another former nationstate that used to be moderate, is (at least in the North) an IS base of operations. Assad controls a rump state and is a complete pariah. Libya is an islamist warzone, mostly anarchic. Egypt barely contained their own islamists by falling back to the military dictatorship, but it is far from strong.

Yeah, I mean... things really don't look good, I agree.

Bombing the place gives assholes from the House of Saud more freshmen for they toy armies; and there is no secular group strong enough to fill the vacuum if IS retreats.

We'll have to settle for the Shi'a government to fill the vacuum. But overall, I don't necessarily consider it some kind of axiomatic reality that "more US bombing = more recruits = stronger ISIS." Let's think about what "Jihadist" groups actually are, what they need to operate effectively, and what they want to achieve. The vast majority of Jihadist groups are regional nuisances at best, like Boko Haram, etc. The rest are loosely-connected Al Qaeda affiliates (and offshoots like ISIS), most of which have a very small operating budget to fund militant activities. Their overall plan (if there is any overall coherent plan to speak of), is loosely based on the political program expressed by the Al Qaeda operative Saif al-Adel:

• (1) Provoke the US into occupying an Islamic country via a massive terror attack on US soil
  (2) Draw the US into a long war of attrition via an endless insurgency funded by militants from all over the globe pouring into the Islamic country
  (3) "Out-source" the Al Qaeda ideology globally, encouraging home-grown Al Qaeda "franchises" to help out by bombing Western countries and killing Westerners all over
  (4) US economy collapses by 2020 because it is stretched too thin and involved in too many wars throughout the Mideast.
  (5) World economy collapses because the world is so dependent on the US economy, thus enabling the creation of a global Caliphate in the ensuing political chaos.

This was their plan back in 2005, so I'm sure they've changed it by now (the 2020 deadline is obviously unlikely, and I'm sure Al Qaeda knows this.) Bin Laden obviously received a lot of inspiration for this plan by his observations on what happened to the USSR. Of course, Bin Laden seems to have totally misunderstood why the USSR fell - (it had little to do with his silly Mujahidin in Afghanistan and a lot more to do with the stresses a global arms race places on a stagnating command economy.)

Most high-profile Jihadist groups like like ISIS, al Nusra, etc. more or less subscribe to this overall plan, even though they obviously place more importance and prioritity on local objectives (like overthrow Assad, etc.) ISIS basically is just another al-Qaeda franchise, but I guess when Zawahiri revoked their franchise rights, al-Baghdadi was just like okay fuck you, whatever...

Anyway, it's interesting that (1) and (2) has pretty much happened successfully. But (3) has never really been brought to fruition. Sure, Al Qaeda has been "out-sourced" all throughout Africa and Asia (it's more of a brand at this point), but this hasn't resulted in constant lone-wolf terror attacks throughout your average US shopping mall. Terror attacks have been regionally limited mostly to anti-occupation/anti-Maliki insurgents.

So the typical wisdom that America should just leave the Mideast alone, because more US bombings = more Jihadists = more chaos = more terror attacks, etc. is not necessarily empirically justified. Really, the major reason for this is the technological break-throughs that have made a large-scale drone war possible. Back in 2001, al Qaeda envisioned a future where America would deploy troops everywhere and collapse out of exhaustion and overspending on homeland security. For a while, it seemed like Bush was playing right into their plan. And while the amount of money the US has spent on Jihadist militants absolutely dwarfs the money spent by Al Qaeda... it just doesn't seem to matter. The US economy has only grown since the drone program escalated, and really the housing market bubble proved to be way more financially catastrophic than any of the US' current overseas antics. The drone war has made it that Al Qaeda can't simply "bleed" the US to death - the US can consistently bomb them at little financial cost and zero political risk from an exhausted American public. The answer to the question "can we kill them faster than they can recruit" seems to be "yes". The overall effect on Al Qaeda has been for it to be very difficult to maintain any kind of command structure. The oft-criticized "whack-a-mole" strategy of killing the newest "Al Qaeda leader of the week" has paid off, in the sense that Al Qaeda can barely gather in large numbers anywhere. It doesn't matter if Al Qaeda can recruit effectively - where are they supposed to train the recruits? Any large-scale training camp will be immediately destroyed. This has reduced Al Qaeda to more of an "underground" mafia-esque organization that relies on various private businesses to launder money to finance their militant activities. Why should the situation play out much differently with ISIS? (It's not even like ISIS has the advantage of the mountainous Afghani terrain like the Taliban; most of northern Iraq is pretty flat and therefore easy to target militants.)

Of course, the drone war is highly unethical, and the innocent casualties are heart breaking. It's uncertain whether the resentment this creates in Pakistan/Yemen and elsewhere will reach a certain critical mass wherein the drone war will eventually backfire. So far, that hasn't happened, yet Al Qaeda has been effectively reduced for very cheap. Yet despite this, for whatever reason step (3) has just never materialized. (Where are all the constant terror attacks in US malls and subways, huh ... maybe Bin Laden overestimated the appeal of 72 virgins in heaven when you can just find a prostitute in America and Europe?)

On the other hand, as you said, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Iraq have become seriously threatened internally by Jihadist groups, as secular dictators have been replaced by Islamist crazies. This is very disturbing, but this has little to do with US bombing and almost everything to do with internal discontentment and, in Syria and Lybia at least, civil wars. The Syrian Jihadists were more inspired by hatred for Assad than US bombings, and the Muslim Brotherhood has been vying for political power for decades and took advantage of the Arab spring to gain control. Islamic extremism has been a useful political tool for militant groups to gain support and power since the 70s. But again, this doesn't mean that "more US bombing = more Jihadists" is a valid assumption. The effect of US bombing on actual Jihadist orgaizations is to weaken them to the point where they go underground and become way less effective.

Of course, this may be a moot point now anyway, with the Turkish military coming in on the ground...

[Simon_Jester]

ISIL will summarily execute anyone who doesn't cooperate with them - they don't need to "get along". They've already executed doctors who refused them medical treatment. They have access to a highly educated population who they can coerce. Also, they can just hire contractors from anywhere to come help them.

It is... not quite that simple if you want an industrial concern to operate efficiently. You can threaten to shoot the operators for failing to keep the facility running at peak efficiency... but if you shoot them, who will replace them? Will they be as able to do the job?

Maintaining an industrial infrastructure requires some reasonable degree of willing compliance from the people who work for you. Threats of force alone are not sufficient.

Meanwhile, hiring contractors only works if the contractors trust ISIL to:
1) Honor the contracts (not the best bet when dealing with a bunch of terrorists and rebels who may be gone in six months)
2) Not randomly shoot or torture or abuse the contractors themselves (otherwise known as 'who in their right mind would work for these murderous clowns?')
3) Somehow create a situation where the contractors don't get nailed by the courts of every developed nation for trafficking with terrorists (a serious practical problem; being an outlaw is much less profitable than being a legitimate businessman).

[Channel72]

ISIL will summarily execute anyone who doesn't cooperate with them - they don't need to "get along". They've already executed doctors who refused them medical treatment. They have access to a highly educated population who they can coerce. Also, they can just hire contractors from anywhere to come help them.

It is... not quite that simple if you want an industrial concern to operate efficiently. You can threaten to shoot the operators for failing to keep the facility running at peak efficiency... but if you shoot them, who will replace them? Will they be as able to do the job?

Maintaining an industrial infrastructure requires some reasonable degree of willing compliance from the people who work for you. Threats of force alone are not sufficient.

Meanwhile, hiring contractors only works if the contractors trust ISIL to:
1) Honor the contracts (not the best bet when dealing with a bunch of terrorists and rebels who may be gone in six months)
2) Not randomly shoot or torture or abuse the contractors themselves (otherwise known as 'who in their right mind would work for these murderous clowns?')
3) Somehow create a situation where the contractors don't get nailed by the courts of every developed nation for trafficking with terrorists (a serious practical problem; being an outlaw is much less profitable than being a legitimate businessman).

Well, so far ISIL has managed to keep some hospitals and general public infrastructure working in Raqqah, despite the fact that they regularly behead and crucify people in the street for minor religious infractions. I understand your point, I'm just not entirely convinced it's so far-fetched to assume that ISIL can operate the infrastructure through a combination of fear and coercion, and willing operators who believe in the cause and are promised a lot of money or something. Yeah, the idea of working with ISIL seems insane, but... they do somehow attract thousands of recruits from Europe. So obviously not everyone shares that sentiment, as difficult to fathom as it may be for you and I.

I mean, they're actively recruiting skilled laborers like doctors and engineers:

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/mi ... -ISIS.html

And apparently Al-Baghdadi is a pretty talented demagogue who is able to recruit a lot of people - which is obviously part of ISIL's initial success in the first place. There are certain people who do not see ISIL as a bunch of murderous clowns, and more as glorious freedom fighters engaged in a noble Jihad against the West and other infidels.

[General Brock]

Didn't ISIL get more weapons for the US aid to the Iraqi government than from the other syrian rebels, anyway?

Allegedly enough to arm 200000 troops, including a couple of M1 Abrams tanks, export varieties used by Egypt, according to some reports. Of course, ISIS only has around 10000 reliable fighters, and its doubtful any are remotely qualified to operate any kind of Abrams tank.

Their haul from Syria was already impressive, though. Among the heavy weapon highlights, 30 T-55 tanks, 5-10 T-72 tanks, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, Type 59-1 field guns, ZU-23-2 Anti-Aircraft Guns, HJ-8 anti-tank missiles, DShK 1938 machine guns. Plus the U.S. weapons already gifted to the Syrian rebels.

However, wars are fought and won with more than just weapons and tactics. In large part, victory goes to the better master of logistical strategy. America is a special-case opponent, though. With the U.S. dollar effectively plugged into everyone else's GDP as the reserve currency of choice, the United States can quantitatively ease through any money hole of a military disaster. The 'petrodollar' is a logistical triumph in and of itself worth taking note of, given that its two-thirds the global reserve currency.

Anyway, at the Siege of Menagh Air Base, at one point Syrian rebels/ISIS used an armoured personnel carrier as a car bomb. Why waste such otherwise valuable assets? Because an APC is not a sustainable asset. It burns too much fuel, is slow for geurilla work relative to a Nissan truck with a machine gun, and requires specialized parts and skilled personnel for maintenance. But as a car bomb, it cut through Syran Arab Army defenders far more effectively than any technical and made a couple of PR martyrs of the crew, which will inspire more Jihadis to sign on. When the base fell, Syrian rebels gained all the materiale those dead Syrian soldiers wouldn't be needing anymore including more armoured personnel carriers.

Winning war is about winning logistics; what does US$500 million in official aid, for example, translate into on the black market for military wares? US$750 million? US$1 billion? What does a working pair of U.S. military grade night vision goggles and a few spare batteries for a platoon go for? Are such even available in quantity? What about reliably high quality medical supplies? What about replacing all those technicals being driven into the ground crossing from battlefront to battlefront?

The CIA/Qataris/Saudis give these supplies away for free, and that's just the 'non-lethal' aid. I've only focused on U.S. aid to ISIS; allegedly Qatar alone has supplied US$3 billion in aid to Syrian rebels/ISIS as well as hosted U.S.-backed training. So, the real ISIS operating budget could easily exceed US$1 billion or more beyond the official U.S. contribution via Syrian rebels, but its easier to base off U.S. aid numbers. If the U.S. were to withdraw, then the other players might have to reconsider their commitments to Syrian rebels/ISIS as the United States brings more than cash, it has unmatched tech and intel resources.

The more ISIS succeeds in filling space (mostly desert) on a map, and becoming a Youtube sensation, the more powerful they seem. Attack their logistics, and then you find out how tough they really are. But it really doesn't do them any harm when the American taxpayer pays for a hellfire missile to blow up a technical and its foreign-fighter crew the American taxpayer likely also paid for, and likely will pay for the replacement of (if the Qatari's or Saudis haven't already). Its likely most people won't care, especially in the West, how Jihadis die.

However, there's a lot at stake, and its not just about religion, though it will keep returning to this point. Its also about a liquid natural gas pipeline and who gets to profit from its route to Europe, and also, who's currency its contents are paid for in.

It is not difficult to notice that the rebellion in Syria began to grow two years ago, almost at the same time as the signing of a memorandum in Bushehr on June 25, 2011 regarding the construction of a new Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline… It is to stretch 1500 km from Asaluyeh on the largest gas field in the world, North Dome/South Pars (shared between Qatar and Iran) to Damascus. The length of pipeline on the territory of Iran will be 225 km, in Iraq 500 km, and in Syria 500-700 km. Later it may be extended along the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea to Greece. The possibility of supplying liquefied gas to Europe via Syria’s Mediterranean ports is also under consideration. Investments in this project equal 10 billion dollars.

If you've investigated the petrodollar, then you would be aware of the Saudi connection to the petrodollar. But its a bluff worth calling that they wouldn't dare stop trading oil in U.S. dollars and buying U.S. debt over this pipeline. Nor is it impossible to accommodate the petrodollar in a non-Saudi routed pipeline. After all, the reaction to the 1973 energy crisis was diplomacy, not war. On the other hand, endless war will threaten the petrodollar and every economy reliant on it. The petrodollar won't collapse anytime soon, but why game that?

First, ISIS war money is wasted on non-productive activity, a transfer and expenditure of wealth, not an investment in the creation of wealth. Second, no major or middle power will want to continue trading in petrodollars when it can be weaponized against them for no other reason than doing sensible business that inconveniences a powerful American or Saudi oligarch - but otherwise does not threaten the U.S. Third, (a) throwing around all those petrodollars reduces the value of everyone else's real goods and services priced in petrodollars, (b) creating incentive to find alternatives where none previously existed.

So, its just not a moral concern, its also a common sense material one at many levels of realpolitik, and that balance of real moral and material reasoning has to start being applied somewhere. How many guns ISIS has, will not change the fact that they are on the wrong side of history, nor will this staged war reflect well on its 'Coalition' stagemasters.

The very fact that cutting off one of ISIS' most obvious supply networks can't even be considered, even while attacking them, should give cause for pause about the reasoning skills of ISIS' would-be armchair executioners.

[Simon_Jester]

Their haul from Syria was already impressive, though. Among the heavy weapon highlights, 30 T-55 tanks, 5-10 T-72 tanks, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, Type 59-1 field guns, ZU-23-2 Anti-Aircraft Guns, HJ-8 anti-tank missiles, DShK 1938 machine guns. Plus the U.S. weapons already gifted to the Syrian rebels.

You're still on that?

Can you provide a count of the value of the stolen American weapons you keep harping on? Because the casual "oh, yeah, the US is a primary supporter of ISIL thing" is really sticking in my craw. You've asserted bizarre and delusional things on this point and have never shown even one sign of willingness to either prove your assertions or concede them.

And as I said before, your refusal to distinguish between fact, fiction, and wishful thinking in your claims about reality make your conclusions suspicious. Even when you generously salt them with commonplace truisms like "wars are won with logistics."

Winning war is about winning logistics; what does US$500 million in official aid, for example, translate into on the black market for military wares? US$750 million? US$1 billion? What does a working pair of U.S. military grade night vision goggles and a few spare batteries for a platoon go for? Are such even available in quantity? What about reliably high quality medical supplies? What about replacing all those technicals being driven into the ground crossing from battlefront to battlefront?

The CIA/Qataris/Saudis give these supplies away for free, and that's just the 'non-lethal' aid. I've only focused on U.S. aid to ISIS; allegedly Qatar alone has supplied US$3 billion in aid to Syrian rebels/ISIS as well as hosted U.S.-backed training. So, the real ISIS operating budget could easily exceed US$1 billion or more beyond the official U.S. contribution via Syrian rebels,

One, that is not an official US contribution to ISIL, it is a contribution to their hated enemies. Said enemies are not just a money-laundering front for ISIL. You have never shown any sign that you understand this.

but its easier to base off U.S. aid numbers. If the U.S. were to withdraw, then the other players might have to reconsider their commitments to Syrian rebels/ISIS as the United States brings more than cash, it has unmatched tech and intel resources.

The US is not providing high-tech weapons or intel to ISIL, even if they are (you allege) laundering aid through other rebel groups who are so weak that they can't stop ALL the aid which goes to them from being effortlessly stolen by ISIL and its :ten thousand reliable fighters."

If you've investigated the petrodollar, then you would be aware of the Saudi connection to the petrodollar. But its a bluff worth calling that they wouldn't dare stop trading oil in U.S. dollars and buying U.S. debt over this pipeline. Nor is it impossible to accommodate the petrodollar in a non-Saudi routed pipeline. After all, the reaction to the 1973 energy crisis was diplomacy, not war. On the other hand, endless war will threaten the petrodollar and every economy reliant on it. The petrodollar won't collapse anytime soon, but why game that?

First, ISIS war money is wasted on non-productive activity, a transfer and expenditure of wealth, not an investment in the creation of wealth. Second, no major or middle power will want to continue trading in petrodollars when it can be weaponized against them for no other reason than doing sensible business that inconveniences a powerful American or Saudi oligarch - but otherwise does not threaten the U.S. Third, (a) throwing around all those petrodollars reduces the value of everyone else's real goods and services priced in petrodollars, (b) creating incentive to find alternatives where none previously existed.

So, its just not a moral concern, its also a common sense material one at many levels of realpolitik, and that balance of real moral and material reasoning has to start being applied somewhere. How many guns ISIS has, will not change the fact that they are on the wrong side of history, nor will this staged war reflect well on its 'Coalition' stagemasters.

At this point you're starting to get incoherent, both about what 'petrodollars' are and about the role they play in conflicts like this. As opposed to other forms of currency, and about the precise relationship between reserve currency dollars and oil.

The very fact that cutting off one of ISIS' most obvious supply networks can't even be considered, even while attacking them, should give cause for pause about the reasoning skills of ISIS' would-be armchair executioners.

Well, to cut off their real source of supply, as opposed to the fictional one, you'd have to stop the Qatari and Saudi oil baron-types from funding them. Which is essentially the same problem we've had ever since oil was first found in Arabia shortly after World War One: the rulers of the peninsula are a bunch of monarchist religious fundamentalists. And there is no indigenous political movement capable of replacing them in a society that was mostly bedouin and sleepy farm villages only a century ago.

Thus, they are at once promoters of vicious, primitive ideologies... and vastly wealthy on the modern scale, because of the happy accident that gave them a resource the modern world needs.

So getting rid of that supply network for ISIL is... hard. I personally would be willing to try it, but I would probably then have to live through a scaled up reenactment of the '70s oil embargoes.

[Grumman]

Have any of you guys read about this:

White House exempts Syria airstrikes from tight standards on civilian deaths

But Caitlin Hayden, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, told Yahoo News that Pentagon officials “take all credible allegations seriously and will investigate” the reports.

At the same time, however, Hayden said that a much-publicized White House policy that President Obama announced last year barring U.S. drone strikes unless there is a “near certainty” there will be no civilian casualties — "the highest standard we can meet," he said at the time — does not cover the current U.S. airstrikes in Syria and Iraq.

The “near certainty” standard was intended to apply “only when we take direct action ‘outside areas of active hostilities,’ as we noted at the time,” Hayden said in an email. “That description — outside areas of active hostilities — simply does not fit what we are seeing on the ground in Iraq and Syria right now.”

This turn of events bothers me, because I feel it undermines what should be a black and white intervention against an evil enemy that thoroughly deserves to be stopped. Hitting clear targets is clearly a good thing, both to hurt ISIS in the short term and as a propaganda victory that hurts their ability to turn fans into fighters, but killing civilians like this isn't just bad in its own right, it risks expanding ISIS's - or run-of-the-mill terrorist groups' - recruitment base.

[General Brock]

...
The fact that you even made this argument in the first place pretty much shows that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about - which makes me feel pretty stupid for even bothering to respond. Thanks, asshole.

In other news, the French government has decided ISIS will henceforth be called DAESH because ISIS leaders hate that. Apparently its close to the Arabic 'Das', "to trample, to crush", but they don't see themselves as "daeshi". Which is what ISIS/DAESH does, and its got that edgy nihilistic chic that's always too popular, so why they are so upset is beyond me.

Maybe they see themselves as saviors and don't get that smashing Syria and Iraq to bloody sectarian pieces is not nation building any more than warmongery westerners get that covert and overt armed interventions are not nation-saving or nation-building. Or maybe they do get that but its such a good time, the truth must never even be hinted at.

So, you're essentially slamming me for suspicions over ISIS' name. Why did I make the ISIS/Isis argument? Because its an incidental detail that in its own way could fit the far more real rigged 'clash of civilizations', the realization of Huntington's thesis the neocons are so hot for. Whole books have been written about this by respectable authors, not just responsible internet bloggers and journalists.

On the ground, it is accepted as fact that ISIS is a crisis fabricated by the United States. But should the United States step aside, the tails wagging the dog might have to shut up and be dogs on their own.

...
Some fraction of ISIS' initial resources came from Western aid... so what? At best that fact somewhat justifies armed intervention.

Repeating the "we broke it so we stay and fix it" line just doesn't wash. In reality, its going to be a long war, admitted to honestly at least, by the Pentagon. Of course its going to be a long hard slog if the politicos are supplying both sides. Openly and without question, let alone debate. It was already going to be a long hard slog if Afghanistan and the previous (more-or-less ongoing) Iraq war were any indicators. Convincing Islamic chavs to do most of the dying is certainly clever, but is it ethical and wise if in the short term its already a clusterfrack?

Since ISIS may now be worth US$2 billion in assets now, the reasonable thing to do would be to cut them off (honestly cut off, no cheating), and then see if by off-chance the monster was built too well. If the goal is indeed to remove ISIS, not bomb the Middle East flat at the slightest pretext.

ISIS jihadis are not beheaders like the Khmer Rouge by any stretch; Pol Pot left large pyramids of thousands of skulls in his wake, and ISIS is pathetic in ambitions and attempts to be such mass-murderers. If it was shameful for China to support Khmer psychos, anyone supporting ISIS by one not-particularly-convincing step removed is shameful and pathetic. But don't tell Samantha Power that. She somehow blames Assad for making a haven for ISIS and declares the U.S. is still out to get him and will fund the Syrian rebels/ISIS to do it. Even as O-Blam-Aaa has to sneak behind her back (and probably Vic Nuland's) to clear, er, coordinate, airstrikes in Syria with Assad's government via Russia.

This is the logic of armed intervention.

Does ISIS make $1-3 million a day net or gross from smuggled oil and gas? Even Assad gets oil from ISIS; he's got no choice as long as his government faces an endless stream of Western/Sunni monarchy funded Jihadis. If the Syrian government is getting paid off - or else Assad airstrikes lost oil wells himself - its a sure thing ISIS has had to make deals with local Sunni tribes to not evict them. These smuggling networks have existed since the Saddam era, set up to counteract Western sanctions.

Saddam's Iraq was under sanction-seige for a decade and still put up something resembling a fight. The United States is actively supplying its opponent. How is this supposed to make any sense? ISIS needs to be made more convincing? Some perverse need for a fairer fight? Everyone tapped for the so-called 'coalition' seems to quietly acknowledge the irrationality of stepping into the mess with their own boots. Especially the nations most directly involved in making it. Except the United States.

Again, ISIS is thought to be worth US$2 billion; another US$500 million in aid - up to a quarter of their estimated net worth they won't have to tap for supplies, some items of which they might not be able to get elsewhere - is somehow nothing?

...
Shut the fuck up already. You are seriously nothing but a broken-record spambot at this point. Since you so miserably fail the Turing Test, rather than responding to you I am going to just write a Python script that links to my post above demonstrating that ISIS makes 3 million a day, and therefore doesn't give a flying fuck about American aid.

That does not compute with you not agreeing that Syrian rebel aid should be cut off.

Even if you disagreed with the notion that ISIS would collapse minus foreign aid, surely now is a good time to stop supplying those rebellious Syrian rebels/ISIS for picking on Kurds and Christians instead of the Assad government. None of them seem to interpret American airstrikes as disapproval for not staying with that particular program.

...
Jesus fucking Christ...

Syntax Error.

I'm sure he wouldn't approve of armed interventions either, even the ones made in his name. Nor would he defile himself with that other inappropriate behavior.

[Channel72]

On the ground, it is accepted as fact that ISIS is a crisis fabricated by the United States. But should the United States step aside, the tails wagging the dog might have to shut up and be dogs on their own.

Nobody sane accepts this as a "fact" except facetiously in the sense that US aid inadvertantly flowed to ISIS, initially, in a misguided attempt to support anti-Assad elements.

Since ISIS may now be worth US$2 billion in assets now, the reasonable thing to do would be to cut them off (honestly cut off, no cheating), and then see if by off-chance the monster was built too well.

NBC, huh? That's a bit too mainstream for you. What happened to all the "alternative media"? Surely, NBC is in cahoots with "O-blam-a" so they can't be trusted.

Anyway, there's no point in even discussing anything further with you since you won't let go of this silly claim. It's a well-established, well-documented fact that ISIS is self-sufficient, and receives plenty of donations and funding from non-US sources - they also make money through crime, and most importantly - by seizing assets in banks they take over. Since you won't acknowledge that fact I'm still not sure why exactly I'm responding to you at all.

If the goal is indeed to remove ISIS, not bomb the Middle East flat at the slightest pretext.

Right, cause randomly bombing the Mid East or anywhere else totally serves US interests. It's not like the US already spent trillions setting up a friendly government in Baghdad to ensure the oil keeps flowing... we also need to make up excuses to keep bombing Iraq because .... ??? reasons? Something... something... COG .... Something... neocons? (Apparently in your mind the world is run by Bond villains.)

Even if you disagreed with the notion that ISIS would collapse minus foreign aid, surely now is a good time to stop supplying those rebellious Syrian rebels/ISIS for picking on Kurds and Christians instead of the Assad government. None of them seem to interpret American airstrikes as disapproval for not staying with that particular program.

Um... the US isn't funding ISIS. They're trying to support the secular rebels (Free Syrian Army, etc.) You're the only idiot who thinks this is some big conspiracy to "keep bombing the Middle East" for some reason.

[Simon_Jester]

Hey, Brock, listen up.

This is a formal statement that I am calling you out on your claim that the US is funding ISIL, which you made about half a dozen times in your most recent post ALONE.

People have been telling you this isn't true, and presenting many arguments for why this isn't true, for literally the whole time you've been participating in this thread.

Not ONCE have you provided any quantitative evidence for the scale of US aid supplies that were stolen by ISIL from other Syrian rebel groups. Not ONCE have you provided any evidence beyond your own conjecture that the US meant for this to happen. And yet you treat it as established fact that ISIL is the product of a deliberate US policy to sustain them, and will vanish if that policy changes.

Put up or shut up.

Under Debating Rule #4, and Debating Rule #5, I am outright demanding that you prove this claim of yours, quantitatively, by showing the following:

1) The value of the US-supplied goods and funds that ISIL captured from other Syrian rebels is large, large enough to be a majority or at least a major share of their total resources.

Yes, I know you believe that- now prove it. With numbers.

2) That these supplies falling into ISIL's hands DOES reflect a deliberate policy of the US government, not just the kind of accident that routinely happens when you back the wrong side in a civil war and your proxies get their asses kicked on the battlefield by a more motivated and better organized force.

Yes, I know you believe that- now prove it. With actual evidence that real US politicians, not conspiracyland fantasy versions of those politicians, are doing this on purpose.

If you cannot support BOTH (1) and (2), then I am calling on you, as one nominally sane person to another, to STOP making this baseless and unjustified claim.

If you are unable to stop, I am going to report this thread for persistent violations of Debating Rule #4 and #5, because you are showing a textbook example of a wall-of-ignorance with your broken record tactics.

This turn of events bothers me, because I feel it undermines what should be a black and white intervention against an evil enemy that thoroughly deserves to be stopped. Hitting clear targets is clearly a good thing, both to hurt ISIS in the short term and as a propaganda victory that hurts their ability to turn fans into fighters, but killing civilians like this isn't just bad in its own right, it risks expanding ISIS's - or run-of-the-mill terrorist groups' - recruitment base.

The reverse argument is that the area is an active warzone where thousands of people are dying every month, so 'putting out the fire' by eliminating ISIL's ability to make war might take precedence over being super-careful.

...
The fact that you even made this argument in the first place pretty much shows that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about - which makes me feel pretty stupid for even bothering to respond. Thanks, asshole.

In other news, the French government has decided ISIS will henceforth be called DAESH because ISIS leaders hate that. Apparently its close to the Arabic 'Das', "to trample, to crush", but they don't see themselves as "daeshi". Which is what ISIS/DAESH does, and its got that edgy nihilistic chic that's always too popular, so why they are so upset is beyond me.

Because they're not trendy postmodernist aren't-I-ironic types like you? Because the verb 'to crush' has implications to them that it doesn't have to you? Because, and this is important, the way you think about things is not the way everyone thinks about things.

So, you're essentially slamming me for suspicions over ISIS' name. Why did I make the ISIS/Isis argument? Because its an incidental detail that in its own way could fit the far more real rigged 'clash of civilizations', the realization of Huntington's thesis the neocons are so hot for. Whole books have been written about this by respectable authors, not just responsible internet bloggers and journalists.

Stop. Listen to yourself.

You just asked yourself: "Why did I tenaciously defend the idea that the Western media's name for ISIL is proof that the whole thing is a CIA brainchild, when literally every other human who interacted with me on the subject disagreed and said it was a foolish idea?"

And your answer was: "Because the name being ISIL is an incidental detail that could fit this narrative of mine."

Stop and think about what that says about how your mind is working. There's a logical fallacy called cherry picking, which involves hunting around for very small pieces of evidence that might support your ideas, and then using a big slab of confirmation bias to paste it all together.

That's what you're doing here. You're believing strange and outlandish things about ISIL, things that totally contradict its own stated mission and the way it organizes itself and its own conduct. And you're believing them because they COULD fit into this narrative of yours.

That's not how evidence works. If you tenaciously defend a highly counterintuitive idea, because it COULD fit into your grand narrative of how the US is making the Middle East into a hellhole on purpose for the sheer evilness of it all... You're simply being a bad debater, and mixing up fact and fiction.

On the ground, it is accepted as fact that ISIS is a crisis fabricated by the United States. But should the United States step aside, the tails wagging the dog might have to shut up and be dogs on their own.

See, this is that delusional brainbug of yours that makes this conversation tragic, it's like having a conversation with an intelligent but mentally ill man.

You make a few intelligent points now and then, but because you just CAN'T STOP bringing up the "US made ISIL by funding them indirectly through supplies to their hated enemies that they later stole," every argument you make is contaminated by fictional support and fictional 'evidence' that chokes out the real evidence and real analysis of the situation.

As Churchill put it, "A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

If it was shameful for China to support Khmer psychos, anyone supporting ISIS by one not-particularly-convincing step removed is shameful and pathetic.

[speaks loudly and slowly]

You. Are. Making. A. Mistake. The. US. Is. Not. Supporting. ISIL. Like. You. Think.

Do you even NOTICE people telling you this anymore? Because if you're not even responding to counterarguments and just mindlessly repeat the same zombie lie over and over, I think we have actual moderator rules against doing that.

Saddam's Iraq was under sanction-seige for a decade and still put up something resembling a fight. The United States is actively supplying its opponent. How is this supposed to make any sense? ISIS needs to be made more convincing? Some perverse need for a fairer fight? Everyone tapped for the so-called 'coalition' seems to quietly acknowledge the irrationality of stepping into the mess with their own boots. Especially the nations most directly involved in making it. Except the United States.

And there you go again. See, that was actually an interesting argument- but then you screw it up by shoehorning the (false) proposition that they've been supplied with hundreds of millions of dollars of US aid through the expedient of money-laundering-by-battlefield.

...
Shut the fuck up already. You are seriously nothing but a broken-record spambot at this point. Since you so miserably fail the Turing Test, rather than responding to you I am going to just write a Python script that links to my post above demonstrating that ISIS makes 3 million a day, and therefore doesn't give a flying fuck about American aid.

That does not compute with you not agreeing that Syrian rebel aid should be cut off.

Even if you disagreed with the notion that ISIS would collapse minus foreign aid, surely now is a good time to stop supplying those rebellious Syrian rebels/ISIS for picking on Kurds and Christians instead of the Assad government. None of them seem to interpret American airstrikes as disapproval for not staying with that particular program.

Again, you miss his point. His point is, VERY BLUNTLY, that this whole "US supplying ISIL" is a figment of your imagination. A bad joke.

The counterarguments to that have been on this thread for like a month already, and you just keep reasserting it over and over. You never responded, you obviously never even thought about them. You just kept doing the broken-record thing.

[Channel72]

BTW, it sucks that Brock is so incoherent and insane, because underlying his wild conspiracy theories are some valid concerns about the idea of "forever war" and the military-industrial complex. It's a cliche at this point, I suppose, but yeah - it definitely is valid to express some serious concern for the fact that an economic motivation exists for the US to continuously engage in military operations overseas. With companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin constantly lobbying for contracts, it's pretty unsettling that the US seems to be continuously involved in one military operation or another in the Middle East.

But the problem is that Brock-type conspiracy theorists go way too far... they assume that since the motivation exists, then any military action taken by the US is part of the same organized scam, regardless of any actual specific parameters of the situation. Of course, the world is way more complex than that. Yes, there is a military industrial complex that has economic incentives to perpetuate war - and the war on terror is open-ended enough to provide a great reason to keep on manufacturing military equipment. But, at the same time - there's also fucking real terrorists motivated by a Jihadist mentality who want to indiscriminately kill anyone with opposing ideologies and create strict Sharia-law states. The US military industrial complex doesn't need to fucking invent enemies - at most it perhaps needs to exaggerate their capabilities in order to persuade politicians to grant them contracts.

It turns out the world is complicated - and in that sense military-industrial-complex/COG conspiracy theorists are just as intellectually bankrupt as the Jihadists in that they simplify everything down to black and white parameters.

[CaptHawkeye]

it's pretty unsettling that the US seems to be continuously involved in one military operation or another in the Middle East.

Ever given thought as to why, pray tell?

[Channel72]

it's pretty unsettling that the US seems to be continuously involved in one military operation or another in the Middle East.

Ever given thought as to why, pray tell?

No, moron. I've given it absolutely ZERO thought, as you can tell since you seem to have only read one sentance in my post above. Next time try making an argument instead of these bullshit smarmy one-liners.

[Simon_Jester]

BTW, it sucks that Brock is so incoherent and insane, because underlying his wild conspiracy theories are some valid concerns about the idea of "forever war" and the military-industrial complex. It's a cliche at this point, I suppose, but yeah - it definitely is valid to express some serious concern for the fact that an economic motivation exists for the US to continuously engage in military operations overseas. With companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin constantly lobbying for contracts, it's pretty unsettling that the US seems to be continuously involved in one military operation or another in the Middle East.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin aren't so much the problem; they make jet combat aircraft and we'd be buying those whether there was a war on in the Middle East or not. But the basic principle you note is real.

[CaptHawkeye]

No, moron. I've given it absolutely ZERO thought, as you can tell since you seem to have only read one sentance in my post above. Next time try making an argument instead of these bullshit smarmy one-liners.

Well clearly you have given it zero thought, since you declined to answer it.

I could copy paste splice about 1/2 of the things you said in this topic into Mein Kampf and they'd be indistinugishable from the writings of that book's actual author.

[Simon_Jester]

Which half?

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014 ... _noon.html

OTTAWA—Canada will deploy military assets, including CF-18s fighter jets, to battle Islamic State extremists for six months, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says.
Calling the extremists a threat to Canadians, Harper announced that in addition to the fighter jets, Canada will contribute an air-to-air refuelling aircraft and two Aurora surveillance aircraft.
As well, the government will extend an ongoing non-combat mission by up to 69 Canadian soldiers to assist security forces in Iraq.
Take Our Poll
Do you support Canada joining the coalition of countries battling the Islamic State?

Yes

No
Vote
View Results
There will, however, be no ground combat mission, which “is explicitly ruled out in the resolution,” Harper told the Commons.
The NDP said it would not support the motion. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau announced his party would also oppose a military mission to fight the Islamic State, also known as ISIL.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper (front and centre) told the Commons on Friday that Canada's goal was to "degrade the capabilities of ISIL," though the militants couldn't be eliminated entirely.
ADRIAN WYLD / THE CANADIAN PRESS

Prime Minister Stephen Harper (front and centre) told the Commons on Friday that Canada's goal was to "degrade the capabilities of ISIL," though the militants couldn't be eliminated entirely.

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said the Conservatives have not given Canadians adequate information on how this war would be conducted.
“Will Canada be stuck a decade from now mired in a war we wisely avoided entering a decade ago?” he asked in the Commons. Mulcair said Canadians are not convinced that the planned mission is necessary.
“Canada, for our part, should not rush into this war,” Mulcair said.
Trudeau accused Harper of using “moralistic” arguments in “an attempt to justify a war.”
“The prime minister and the government have given us little reason to believe that, once in combat, they will be able to limit our role,” Trudeau told MPs.
He noted that Harper had criticized then Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien for not joining the United States-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, a mission Trudeau said was based on false intelligence and led to a destabilization of the region. “The world is still dealing with the consequences of” that mistaken mission, he said.
Harper laid out the case for combat in a noon-hour address to Parliament.
“Let me be clear on the objectives of this intervention. We intend to significantly degrade the capabilities of ISIL,” Harper said.
“Specifically, its ability either to engage in military movements of scale or to operate bases in the open,” the prime minister.

Both of my home countries are fighting IS now. I approve of Canada fighting IS, though I dislike Steven Harper.

[CaptHawkeye]

Which half?

Now without looking back at 72's posts, try to tell me where his horseshit ends, and Hitler's begins.

"Of course, the world is way more complex than that. Yes, there is a military industrial complex that has economic incentives to perpetuate war - and the war on terror is open-ended enough to provide a great reason to keep on manufacturing military equipment. Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. The US military industrial complex doesn't need to fucking invent enemies - at most it perhaps needs to exaggerate their capabilities in order to persuade politicians to grant them contracts."

"So, its just not a moral concern, its also a common sense material one at many levels of realpolitik, and that balance of real moral and material reasoning has to start being applied somewhere. The more inferior new revolutionary movements are, the more will they try to denigrate the old forms. How many guns ISIS has, will not change the fact that they are on the wrong side of history, nor will this staged war reflect well on its 'Coalition' stagemasters. And this struggle is a means of furthering the health and powers of resistance in the species. Thus it is one of the causes underlying the process of development towards a higher quality of being."

[Rogue 9]

It's pretty easy to tell, actually, because he hasn't gone on about spiritual conviction or racial superiority.

[CaptHawkeye]

So I guess we're just going to ignore all those parts about nationalism, expansionism, militarism, cleverly veiled under the "realpolitik" excuse again.

[Grumman]

I'll also note that while both Channel72 and Adolf Hitler might believe there's such a thing as a military-industrial complex, Channel72 clearly believes this to be a bad thing, while Adolf Hitler believed it to be a good thing. Trying to conflate the two would be as stupid as claiming that recognising that ISIS is attempting to commit genocide is the same thing as supporting it.

[CaptHawkeye]

Hitler also believed war was unethical, and gave numerous speeches at the Reichstag decrying his enemies' attempt to draw him into war. After all, he just wanted to crush Jews and Untermensch. He never wanted war, the Grand Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy just forced his hand!

But if everyone in this topic doesn't get it now I suppose they never will. Every time some neckbeard on this website writes the word "realpolitik" I cringe. Because I can actually imagine them convincing themselves they actually believe that and aren't just huge, socially maladjusted cowards covering their own inadequacies.

[The Romulan Republic]

Apologies for the non-functional link I posted. I think they might have replaced the article with another one.