SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On the sixth anniversary of the first infamous "Cablegate" by WikiLeaks, when it releases its first batch of sensitive US files, on November 28 2010, it has expanded its Public Library of US Diplomacy (PLUSD) with 531,525 new diplomatic cables from 1979.
In a statement to coincide with the release of the cables, known as "Carter Cables III", Mr Assange explained how events which unfolded in 1979, had begun a series of events that led to the rise of ISIS.
He said: "If any year could be said to be the "year zero" of our modern era, 1979 is it."
Mr Assange said a decision by the CIA, together with Saudi Arabia, to plough billions of dollars into arming the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan to tackle the Soviet Union, had led to the creation of terror group al-Qaeda.
This, in turn, he said led to the 9/11 terror strikes, the invasion of Afghanhistan and Iraq by the US, and the creation of ISIS.
Source: Express.co.uk
(Score: -1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @03:55PM
Gee, Assange. Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979, d'ya think that just maybe that possibly had something to do with inciting the Mujahadeen to commit acts of Jihad against "infidels"?
It's almost like you're conveniently forgetting this because you like the Russian government. Ohhh yes... they're the ones who have been protecting your butt from imprisonment, and plying you with hacked documents so you can stay in the news.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @04:07PM
Had some European country had given Assange refuge he'd certainly be there. It's not like he didn't try that first- But there was nowhere else to go. Sure, Putin and many others rejoice when somebody gives the US a black eye but that hardly means that the news are less newsworthy...
Of course Russia was a part of the equation but that's public history taught in schools.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday November 29 2016, @04:42PM
Are you confusing Jullian Assange with Edward Snowden?
Last I heard, Jullian Assange was holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @04:42PM
I don't see this as being political in that way.
Besides, even front line assembly made music in the 80s about stuff like this. I believe one track was called "rebels in afganistan". I personally had no idea what it was about until I read up on it.
That is when I connected the dots as to where a lot of the weapons those warlords had, came from... and how the Taliban could rule with muscle and not with soul, no matter what it was they stated.
You would think that Assange would instead suggest something more modern and relevant; that destablizing the middle east by removing a few despots and leaving no functional government in locations known to have way more conventional weapons than the populace needed, could have been a cause as to how a new and less desirable government began to root and grow.
Actions in the 70s certainly set the backdrop, but none of the problems today were recognizable in their current form were it not for the US mission being 'accomplished'.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday November 29 2016, @04:53PM
I don't see this as being political in that way.
Yeah, too bad this is the first time in about 2 years.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by quintessence on Tuesday November 29 2016, @05:20PM
Yeah, but the clusterfuck that is the Middle East is a bit of a political hot potato at the moment, with everyone kicking the ball back down the for the circumstances they were handed. I imagine John Adams will be implicated at some point for the Treaty of Triploi.
Of course if the Middle East were so minor utopia, everyone would be standing in line to take credit as well.
And what's missing from all of this analysis is the Muslims themselves, as if they are only pawns to be shuffled about at the whim of the west. That really hasn't worked out too terribly well.
There is certainly more than enough blame to go around, but out of the thousands of possible reactions to western aggression, ISIS was one of them. You can blame the west for completely fucking over the area, but not for the barbarism that followed.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @07:26PM
I think it all goes back to Gutenberg and the printing press.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 29 2016, @05:18PM
Umm, no, they aren't, that would be the government of Ecuador that's been protecting him from imprisonment. Also, the UN examined the case and found in favor of Assange, that the whole purpose of the Swedish case was to try to get him into physical custody so he could be shipped off to the US and be on the receiving end of torturous imprisonment before trial just like Chelsea Manning.
I do find it very interesting how when Wikileaks was helping the New York Times find out all about horrible stuff the Bush administration had done, everyone was cheering them on, but when Wikileaks was helping everyone else find out all about horrible stuff Hillary Clinton has done all of a sudden they were corrupted tools of Vladimir Putin. That's one of my tests for whether someone has fallen for Democratic partisan hackery these days.
That said, Assange overstated his case a bit. ISIS was made possible by many many acts of stupidity by the US. In approximate chronological order:
1. Backing the mujahadeen, including Osama bin Laden, in Afghanistan to fight the Russians. Understandable at the time, but still something likely to come back to haunt them.
2. Cozying up to Saudi Arabia's monarchy, even though their government is directly responsible for all sorts of problems for the US. For example, Osama bin Laden's main grievance against the US was that we had put our troops into Saudi territory in 1991, even though that was at the Saudi government's request.
3. Invading Iraq for no reason, creating a vacuum of power and a bunch of unemployed military officers.
4. Backing the rebels in Syria, leaving wide areas of Syria that were effectively lawless that ISIS could use as a base of military operations.
5. Letting the new Iraqi government abuse the Sunni population, creating a very real grievance against Baghdad that ISIS could exploit.
6. The complete destruction of Iraq's civil bureaucracy due to "de-Baathification", which made conditions in much of Iraq miserable.
That said, there is a strategy that is working to defeat ISIS: Help the various forces operating in Iraq and Syria take care of it. Which is exactly what Obama has been doing, which is why most of their leadership is now completely surrounded by enemy forces. It is particularly important that it's not the US or other Western forces that are getting rid of ISIS, because their entire ideology is based on the idea that their falling to Christians will be what triggers the apocalypse, so what we want is for them to be defeated by Muslims rather than Christians.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by Type44Q on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:15AM
Invading Iraq for no reason...
No reason that you know of... isn't the same thing. FYI, Saddam was openly preparing to sell Iraqi oil for Euros, thus bypassing "the WRC" (and Col. Omar was about to go a step farther, rejecting all fiat and only selling for bullion).
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:51PM
So instead, we invaded Iraq, and now ISIS is selling oil for whatever they can get. Progress!
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @05:49PM
Also, the UN examined the case and found in favor of Assange, that the whole purpose of the Swedish case was to try to get him into physical custody so he could be shipped off to the US and be on the receiving end of torturous imprisonment before trial just like Chelsea Manning.
That doesn't hold water, because it would be easier to extradite him straight from the UK. Also they would still need permission from the UK to extradite him to the US from Sweden because he would have been extradited from the UK to Sweden.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @07:54PM
Often things have multiple causes: different forces coming together at the same time. To say a single force or action caused terror groups is presumptuous. I call political bias here.
For example, one strong theory is that modern-day terror was invented by a combination of the Ireland conflict and the Vietnam war. Many of the guerilla techniques used by terrorists were learned and perfected by those conflicts. It's just the regular progression of technology and know-how, not a devious plot by a single force.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @12:04AM
Energy drinks, especially large quantities consumed in a short span of time, aren't for everyone. Put the can down and step away from the keyboard.
No, the Russians have been offering a safe haven to Ed Snowden, not Assange. Assange, the fellow you're frothing about, was granted safe haven by Ecuador, not Russia, because the US desperately wants to kidnap and punish him for his having revealed evil deeds committed by them that they tried to cover up.
Assuming you're still confusing Assange with Snowden, nobody is plying Snowden with documents. Ed himself had some documents several years ago, but he handed them over to responsible agents to assess and responsibly inform the public about the contents of. He, himself, never revealed anything of the documents, despite many wingnuts continually claiming that he did. He doesn't have those documents and the Russians certainly aren't plying him with fresh ones.
He stays in the news because his government refuses to acknowledge the tremendous good deed done for the world in general and for the citizens of the US in particular. If they would admit that they screwed up, not only in the disservice they did to the public, but also in their witch hunt for Ed and for the continuation and expansion of the dirty deeds that got them in trouble in the first place, there would be no reason for a spotlight to stay on him.
But you were ranting about Assange, and that's not relevant to him. If the US would stop trying to kidnap a foreigner for not violating any US laws because he wasn't in the US and isn't a USian, the spotlight might fall off him, too. And it would help their case if they would stop torturing Chelsea Manning because they can't get their hands on Assange to torture him.
There are too many massive, bruised egos involved, so that's not likely to happen in our lifetimes.