IS crisis in Iraq and Syria

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

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

He didn't. He went on about the superiority of the West, something that I have been hearing a lot ever since the Ukrainian crisis.

[Channel72]

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.

Oh please. If the best you can do is drop this boring Godwin's law bullshit, I have no interest in debating you.

If you have an actual counter-argument to anything I've written in this thread, feel free to post it. Until then, fuck off.

[Rogue 9]

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

He didn't. He went on about the superiority of the West, something that I have been hearing a lot ever since the Ukrainian crisis.

And you believe Western secular civilization isn't superior to a theocratic, genocidal proto-state that engages in open slavery, rape, and murder of everyone it doesn't like? You can say a lot of bad shit about the current state of the United States and western Europe, but none of it holds a candle to what ISIL is currently doing.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

And you believe Western secular civilization isn't superior to a theocratic, genocidal proto-state that engages in open slavery, rape, and murder of everyone it doesn't like? You can say a lot of bad shit about the current state of the United States and western Europe, but none of it holds a candle to what ISIL is currently doing.

I didn't say anything of the like. However, when people start getting high and holy about superiority complexes, you get nonsense such as the invasion of Iraq back in 2003, which by the way led to a lot of destruction thanks to American incompetence. Never mind the role American policy played that led to this latest fiasco.

[Simon_Jester]

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."

Actually, finding the Hitler quotes was pathetically easy. They're bolded.

The tone is different, the subject matter is different, the fundamental thesis of the Hitler quotes is different. If you can't spot the difference you don't deserve to graduate from a high school English class.

No, I didn't look any of them up, nor did I look at any Channel72 quotes in the process of singling them out. It really was that easy, because you're a random lying clown who came into this thread to shit on people and can't even be bothered to do it creatively or intelligently. All you did was blindly copypaste Hitler quotes into the middle of two randomly selected paragraphs from Channel72's post, one of which wasn't even his.

And at that it probably still took you more time to do this than it took me to spot the Hitler quotes.

YOU, on the other hand, fail your "differentiate author" test really hard, because you quoted passages from General Brock (underlined) as if they were Channel72's (italicized). You failed your own test.

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

If you were literate you would have read Channel72's posts and understood that he is psychoanalyzing the military-industrial complex, not praising it.

I guess you prefer to remain ignorant and uncomprehending of things you don't like. Because you show up and fling shit at people who try to describe those things.

And you believe Western secular civilization isn't superior to a theocratic, genocidal proto-state that engages in open slavery, rape, and murder of everyone it doesn't like? You can say a lot of bad shit about the current state of the United States and western Europe, but none of it holds a candle to what ISIL is currently doing.

I didn't say anything of the like. However, when people start getting high and holy about superiority complexes, you get nonsense such as the invasion of Iraq back in 2003, which by the way led to a lot of destruction thanks to American incompetence. Never mind the role American policy played that led to this latest fiasco.

Agreed, but I don't think Channel72 is actually doing that.

CaptainChimpo thinks so because he doesn't read. But reading his posts, Channel72 is quite conscious of the moral hazards imposed by interventionism, and does not approve of them. He thinks Al Qaeda's strategy of exhausting the US with interventions may not actually be working because with drones the US has figured out how to intervene effectively yet cheaply... but that doesn't translate to thinking "the US should always intervene" or "the US is racially/culturally superior."

[Prannon]

In support of Simon's post, I present the following.

This is what Channel72 actually said:

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.

This is how CaptainHawkeye has modified Channel72's post to read:

"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."

The second point stands true as well, that CaptainHawkeye actually performed the same modifications to a post of General Brock's, appearing to claim that it was Channel72 who made these statements.

Original, down at the bottom:

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.

Modified:

"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."

Now, as a clarification, I think that these modifications by CaptainHawkeye were intended to show that the quoted material from Channel72 and Brock are indistinguishable from quotes by Hitler when they are put next to one another. This is consistent with his claim in this post.

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.

However, this appears to me to be a dishonest comparison that really adds very little to the conversation, aside from ad hominem (Your point is invalid because I think you sound like Hitler, because reasons), and I agree with Simon that Channel's general acknowledgement of the Military-Industrial Complex amounts more to a criticism of the system than a wholesale embrace of how things are. Certainly, nowhere in this thread have I gotten a jingoistic impression out of anything Channel has contributed.

[Simon_Jester]

Now, as a clarification, I think that these modifications by CaptainHawkeye were intended to show that the quoted material from Channel72 and Brock are indistinguishable from quotes by Hitler when they are put next to one another. This is consistent with his claim in this post.

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.

Except that he's wrong and I can tell them apart at a glance. The thesis of the Hitler quotes he injected into Channel72's writing and Brock's writing are NOTHING like the thesis of the paragraphs he injected them into.

It's as if I'd taken Hitler quotes and dropped them into a random spot in a high school chemistry textbook or something- they stand out to anyone with a brain who's actually stopping to read the document.

If Hawkeye thinks they're hard to tell apart, that just goes to prove that when it comes to reading comprehension, Hawkeye's vision is... less than hawklike.

Alternatively, Hawkeye just has a troll quota to fulfill and can't be bothered to troll convincingly.

However, this appears to me to be a dishonest comparison that really adds very little to the conversation, aside from ad hominem (Your point is invalid because I think you sound like Hitler, because reasons)

They're not even GOOD reasons!

[CaptHawkeye]

I didn't say anything of the like. However, when people start getting high and holy about superiority complexes, you get nonsense such as the invasion of Iraq back in 2003, which by the way led to a lot of destruction thanks to American incompetence. Never mind the role American policy played that led to this latest fiasco.

Yeah, and I just can't stand it when people make excuses for these views with weak cop outs like "but I don't actually want war or like the military industrial complex THAT'S JUST HOW IT IS!" This kind of don't hate the playa hate the game nonsense ended up contributing to the western-military adventurist mindset that existed circa 2003. My point is that despite what neckbeards think, the circumstances for that haven't changed all that much. The biggest lol to me being that it was 100% the argument for fascism too. If they'd bother to read any social-history anyway and not just felate to statistics about a Panther tank.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah, and I just can't stand it when people make excuses for these views with weak cop outs like "but I don't actually want war or like the military industrial complex THAT'S JUST HOW IT IS!"

So your solution is to not read posts talking about war or the military-industrial complex. And to project your own biases and stereotypes onto such posts. And to conflate the opinions of very different people into one big uniform blob. And then to condemn everyone involved (except your righteous self) on the grounds that the stereotypical image in your head is evil.

This kind of don't hate the playa hate the game nonsense ended up contributing to the western-military adventurist mindset that existed circa 2003. My point is that despite what neckbeards think, the circumstances for that haven't changed all that much.

But because of your failure to actually read, evaluate, and understand what other people say... you can't tell the difference between a neckbeard and anyone else. You can't even tell the difference between the fanatically antiwar and active-conspiracy-theorist Brock and the more moderate Channel72, or between either of them and Hitler.

That's not a comment on them, it's a comment on you. You're so preoccupied with your own model of what other people think that your attempt at 'criticism' becomes a meaningless joke. Because you are literally wasting your energy attacking a strawman.

So you're not even a good troll, because you're not thought-provoking enough to get someone to spend more than a few minutes refuting you.

[Channel72]

Some good news for once...

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeas ... 40817.html

Syrians Kurds push back ISIL from Kobane hill
Kurdish fighters make progress against ISIL on Mishtenur hill, which overlooks key Syrian town on border with Turkey.

ISIL fighters have been trying for nearly three weeks to seize Kobane

Syrian Kurds have pushed back fighters from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) from an area of high ground known as the Mishtenur hill, overlooking the Syrian town of Kobane, also known as Ayn Arab, on the border with Turkey.

ISIL had attempted to storm the town from both east and west of the strategic hill, but Kurdish fighters repulsed the attack on Sunday, said the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

ISIL had seized part of Mishtenur hill late on Saturday, but US-led air strikes slowed their advance.

However, Idris Nahsen, a Syrian Kurdish official, complained there was no co-ordination between coalition commanders and Kurdish fighters on the ground.

The observatory said ISIL fired at least 10 rockets at the town of Kobane on Sunday.

ISIL fighters are said to have been firing tank shells and mortars as they try to break the Kurds' hold on the town.

The latest fighting came a day after a Kurdish female fighter blew herself up at an IS position on Sunday, the observatory said.

Clashes continue

The observatory said heavy clashes took place overnight, with US-led coalition airstrikes killing at least 16 fighters.

Al Jazeera's Bernard Smith, reporting from Urfa in Turkey, said shelling and heavy gunfire continued all morning on Monday, as the battle for Kobane continued.

Smith said about 2,000 or 3,000 Syrian Kurds were fighting with powerful weapons, but have been demanding more.

He said Salah Muslim, the leader of the Syrian Kurds, had met with Turkish security officials and asked for more weapons, rather than Turkish soldiers joining the fighting, and permission to enter Turkish territory to pick up the arms.

ISIL fighters have been trying for nearly three weeks to seize Kobane, in a bid to cement their grip over a long stretch of the Syrian-Turkish border.

The attacks since mid-September have sent more than 160,000 Syrians fleeing into Turkey.

I'm happy the Kurds were able to hold out - and even these small victories are important because a lot of ISIL's "power" in the region is psychological.

In other news, the Pakistan Taliban apparently is officially supporting ISIL now;

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2014 ... 52436.html

Seriously guys... I mean, I know the Taliban is a bunch of brutal, misogynist thugs - but I thought they at least had some fucking standards. I guess not. Although I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Taliban members discount the reports of ISIL's brutality as Western propaganda.

Also, poor al Qaeda/Zawahiri... getting so marginalized these days.

[Vympel]

Vympel, the main problem is that if someone doesn't stop ISIL they'll become a new nation in the region, make a great deal of trouble for everyone immediately involved, and probably kill a few hundred thousand people or something.

That unpleasant reality motivates a lot of people to want to do something, both because there are objective negative consequences to ignoring the problem, and because it makes us feel weak to see things like that happen and be unable/unready/unwilling to do anything about them.

There are a lot of problems with that attitude, but it's been a very common thing for a very long time.

Indeed, the problems with that attitude is that there are objective negative consequences to engaging the problem with airstrikes, as well. This is the problem with interventionist reasoning - it never takes into account the negative consequences of what is being proposed.

The US couldn't put down a Sunni insurgency in a decade of counter-insurgency with 100,000 men - it certainly isn't going to crush IS with these chickenshit airstrikes blowing up a captured HMWWV here, an empty building there. This fetid sectarian religious strife is none of our business. Leave it to those states that are actually affected by it - if they do nothing, then its on their heads. The West is not going to fix Iraq and Syria, they're not going to end sectarianism and religious fanaticism, and all the US intervention has done now is hand a propaganda coup to IS, all for the low, low price of an ever increasing number of beheaded Westerners.

Oh, and ever more compromises of our liberty at home (thanks Tony Abbott, you fearmongering fuck) as the population is whipped into a frenzy by propaganda.

The logic that demands intervention in Syria/Iraq over a total non-threat like IS demands that the US (and its allies) undertake a quasi-imperial project in these failed states forever, engendering nothing but hatred for the West, and creating plenty of basis for anti-Western terrorist attacks for decades. This madness has to end.

[TheHammer]

Vympel, the main problem is that if someone doesn't stop ISIL they'll become a new nation in the region, make a great deal of trouble for everyone immediately involved, and probably kill a few hundred thousand people or something.

That unpleasant reality motivates a lot of people to want to do something, both because there are objective negative consequences to ignoring the problem, and because it makes us feel weak to see things like that happen and be unable/unready/unwilling to do anything about them.

There are a lot of problems with that attitude, but it's been a very common thing for a very long time.

Indeed, the problems with that attitude is that there are objective negative consequences to engaging the problem with airstrikes, as well. This is the problem with interventionist reasoning - it never takes into account the negative consequences of what is being proposed.

The US couldn't put down a Sunni insurgency in a decade of counter-insurgency with 100,000 men - it certainly isn't going to crush IS with these chickenshit airstrikes blowing up a captured HMWWV here, an empty building there. This fetid sectarian religious strife is none of our business. Leave it to those states that are actually affected by it - if they do nothing, then its on their heads. The West is not going to fix Iraq and Syria, they're not going to end sectarianism and religious fanaticism, and all the US intervention has done now is hand a propaganda coup to IS, all for the low, low price of an ever increasing number of beheaded Westerners.

Oh, and ever more compromises of our liberty at home (thanks Tony Abbott, you fearmongering fuck) as the population is whipped into a frenzy by propaganda.

The logic that demands intervention in Syria/Iraq over a total non-threat like IS demands that the US (and its allies) undertake a quasi-imperial project in these failed states forever, engendering nothing but hatred for the West, and creating plenty of basis for anti-Western terrorist attacks for decades. This madness has to end.

Well I think by taking a hard stance of limiting to air strikes, we are in essence "leaving it up to the states that are affected by it". By not putting boots on the ground, we aren't taking on the task ourselves, rather we sit ready to tilt the balance in favor of more desirable groups.

[Simon_Jester]

If the air strikes are used to strike at ISIL's ability to mobilize, organize, and wage large scale ground wars, then in itself, assuming the affected nations are actually prepared to fight back... that could significantly decrease the overall length of the conflict, while giving the current governments fighting ISIL cause to appreciate the foreigners rather than allying with their own anti-foreign political factions.

However, obviously the airstrikes cannot solve anything on their own.

[K. A. Pital]

So. Let's talk about more desireable groups. Which of them could control the Sunni territories? Kurds aren't going beyond where they live. Same for the Shia.

[Channel72]

So. Let's talk about more desireable groups. Which of them could control the Sunni territories? Kurds aren't going beyond where they live. Same for the Shia.

Well, "desirable" is a really relative term, I suppose. At this point the best we can hope for in Iraq is for the Shia Dawa party government to regain control of the North, and continue along with their Shia/Sunni/Kurdish state as the US initially attempted to architect. As for Syria, ideally something like the Syrian National Coalition (some coalition of Syrian secularists/socialists, like the Syrian Democratic People's Party) could hopefully form a working government. Despite the fact that the region is swarming with Jihadists, there are significant secular elements in Syria. The problem is that they can't seem to get their act together, and are constantly out-manuevered by Islamists and plagued by internal squabbling.

[Channel72]

Indeed, the problems with that attitude is that there are objective negative consequences to engaging the problem with airstrikes, as well. This is the problem with interventionist reasoning - it never takes into account the negative consequences of what is being proposed.

The US couldn't put down a Sunni insurgency in a decade of counter-insurgency with 100,000 men - it certainly isn't going to crush IS with these chickenshit airstrikes blowing up a captured HMWWV here, an empty building there. This fetid sectarian religious strife is none of our business. Leave it to those states that are actually affected by it - if they do nothing, then its on their heads. The West is not going to fix Iraq and Syria, they're not going to end sectarianism and religious fanaticism, and all the US intervention has done now is hand a propaganda coup to IS, all for the low, low price of an ever increasing number of beheaded Westerners.

Oh, and ever more compromises of our liberty at home (thanks Tony Abbott, you fearmongering fuck) as the population is whipped into a frenzy by propaganda.

The logic that demands intervention in Syria/Iraq over a total non-threat like IS demands that the US (and its allies) undertake a quasi-imperial project in these failed states forever, engendering nothing but hatred for the West, and creating plenty of basis for anti-Western terrorist attacks for decades. This madness has to end.

You're vastly oversimplifying things. Again, it's not some physical law that "more US intervention = more Jihadists = more terror attacks". The obvious counter example is the entire fucking 90s, where the US constantly policed the skies above Kurdistan resulting in one of the safest, most prosperous, and most US-friendly regions in the entire Middle East - second only to probably Israel in terms of US-friendliness. And again, I'm not saying the US is somehow totally responsible for making Kurdistan such a great place; obviously the Kurds themselves deserve most of the credit. But the US no-fly-zones certainly helped them substantially.

US intervention is not always the answer; it's not even the best answer most of the time, and often it's a horrible solution (like in 2003). But that doesn't mean it always has negative consequences like more terrorist attacks. (Terrorist attacks in the West have actually declined substantially as US intervention increased via the drone war. Jihadist terrorists have probably killed more fellow Muslims via sectarian Sunni/Shia violence than actual Westerners.)

[K. A. Pital]

No, sorry, but Sunnis will not live under Shia, Kurds or Assad any longer. Alawites were hunted down and exterminated. Shia to the Sunni are enemies, and after the US turned a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad from the Sunnites by the Shiites, so Sunnites will no longer accept the Baghdad government authority. Kurds are too alien and secular for both groups, and like I said they will not risk their lives to control Sunnite territories.

No one heard the Sunnis of Iraq when the Shia exterminated them and drove dozens of thousands out of Baghdad. It is payback time in their eyes. Shia parties will never control the North again.

[Channel72]

No, sorry, but Sunnis will not live under Shia, Kurds or Assad any longer. Alawites were hunted down and exterminated. Shia to the Sunni are enemies, and after the US turned a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad from the Sunnites by the Shiites, so Sunnites will no longer accept the Baghdad government authority. Kurds are too alien and secular for both groups, and like I said they will not risk their lives to control Sunnite territories.

No one heard the Sunnis of Iraq when the Shia exterminated them and drove dozens of thousands out of Baghdad. It is payback time in their eyes. Shia parties will never control the North again.

Firstly, the secular Syrian rebels are mostly Sunni, so the Shia/Sunni divide is orthogonal to the struggle in Syria.

As for Iraq, this remains to be seen. Saying that "Sunnis will never live under Shia" is a major over-simplification; human populations cannot be reduced to absolute statements like that so easily. Getting rid of Maliki and installing Abadi might be a step in the right direction - his rhetoric is much more conciliatory and inclusive. At least, he's trying to reach out to Sunnis:

http://www.dw.de/iraqs-new-premier-al-a ... a-17857486

Whether Abadi will actually be effective at reconciling with Sunnis remains to be seen, but it's certain that Maliki was not helping. Even Iran wanted him gone when it became clear he was way more interested in promoting Shi'a causes than uniting Iraq.

But what we really need to be worrying about is the fact that for the most part, ISIL is the loudest Sunni advocate in Iraq right now, and they are effective at winning over the hearts and minds of Iraqi Sunnis. But that doesn't mean all Sunnis flock to ISIL. Sunni groups like JRTN are mostly anti-ISIL and primarily Iraqi nationalist - their biggest gripe was the Maliki government and it remains to be seen if Abadi can win them over. A lot of ISIL rhetoric goes on about the oppression of Sunnis by the Shia/Iranian Dawa government. If Abadi is successfully able to counter that by appealing to Sunnis, things could improve.

The point is, things aren't as black and white as you seem to think.

[K. A. Pital]

Secular Sunni Syrian rebels control almost no territory to speak of. Are you saying these are going to take over Raqqah and hold it? Um...

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Secular Sunni Syrian rebels control almost no territory to speak of. Are you saying these are going to take over Raqqah and hold it? Um...

The bigger question is how "secular" is secular. If they are Wahabists, forget about it.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Secular Sunni Syrian rebels control almost no territory to speak of. Are you saying these are going to take over Raqqah and hold it? Um...

The bigger question is how "secular" is secular. If they are Wahabists, forget about it.

Who gives a flying fuck how "secular" they are? We don't go carpet-bombing the Vatican, Saudi Arabia, or Iran (even though the thought of carpet-bombing Iran gives neo-cons raging erections that last half the day) and there are few complaints about the Tibetan government in exile. Let them have their medieval superstitions ... we know that no government that'll manage to replace Assad in Syria will be anywhere near what a secular humanist in the Western tradition would be able to call "secular" with a straight face.

[K. A. Pital]

So we are going to replace a secular regime with the equivalent of Saudi Arabia? Well... Give the IS some time, don't bomb it, and you will have another Saudi Arabia right there inbetween Iraq and Syria. Sorry to be the one who breaks it to you.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Secular Sunni Syrian rebels control almost no territory to speak of. Are you saying these are going to take over Raqqah and hold it? Um...

The bigger question is how "secular" is secular. If they are Wahabists, forget about it.

Who gives a flying fuck how "secular" they are? We don't go carpet-bombing the Vatican, Saudi Arabia, or Iran (even though the thought of carpet-bombing Iran gives neo-cons raging erections that last half the day) and there are few complaints about the Tibetan government in exile. Let them have their medieval superstitions ... we know that no government that'll manage to replace Assad in Syria will be anywhere near what a secular humanist in the Western tradition would be able to call "secular" with a straight face.

Well if you want a second source of terrorusts, sure, go right ahead.

[K. A. Pital]

Damn right, once the New Saudi Arabia gets the pumps to run and starts selling oil, the first thing it will do... will be spending more money for the Black Banner of Allah (heh-heh, idiot kufrs are willing to give limitless monies are they not?). Needless to remind when Pakistan got some money and weapons from the West, it created Wahhabist groups all over Central Asia. When Afghanistan started profiting from opium trade, they initiated a global jihad. Saudi Arabia and Qatar managed to fund islamist movements all over Northern Africa and in the territories 'controlled' by the US with the oil money.

Has there ever been a single instance when the money given to a 'moderate' islamist regime did not end up in the hands of the beheaders and 'suiciders', as George liked to call 'em?

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

So what is there to be done, Stas? We know the situation is fuckered right up, what do you think should/can be done to fix it? Or is it doom and jihadists all the way down at this point?