SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
How does the Islamic State, a ragtag band of jihadis who are supposedly at war with the combined military might of the US, Turkey, the Saudis, the Russians, the Iraqis, the Iranians and many others (including, of course, the Syrians) manage to fund and coordinate spectacular international terror attacks, including not only the Paris attack, but also (apparently) bombings in Turkey and Lebanon, and the take down of Russian airliners? How is it that governments can flag and track the "suspicious" financial transactions of anyone withdrawing or transferring over $10,000 from their own bank account, but can't seem to find a way to restrict cash flows, arms and munitions to a geographically isolated enemy who are dependent on oil sales for their financial survival?
Good question. Just don't ask the US State Department spokesman those questions, because he doesn't have the answers. When asked earlier this week by RT's Gayane Chichakyan "whether the US has sanctioned any banks suspected of carrying out transactions for ISIL," department spokesman Mark Toner responded with a resounding: "I'd have to look into that. I don't have the answer in front of me."
Apparently the question of how ISIS is financing its operations is of so little interest to the State Department that they haven't bothered to look into it. So in the interest of helping them out with their homework, let's connect a few dots, shall we?
[More after the break.]
Earlier this year it was revealed that French President François Hollande had authorized illegal shipments of arms to the Syrian terrorists in 2012. The deliveries–including cannons, machine guns, rocket launchers and anti-tank missiles–were in direct contravention of an EU embargo that was in place at the time.
In late 2012 it was revealed that one of the most prominent backers of the Syrian terrorists was the French government, who in addition to their illegal arms shipments were also delivering money directly to the terrorist opposition leaders.
Last year the French arms export industry enjoyed its best sales in 15 years, with revenues up 18%. The reason for the Merchant of Death bonanza? A spike in sales to Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two of the main funders and supporters of ISIS.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:25PM
I'm glad the author must have come right out from one of the cabinet meetings with all his insider info.
What a jackass.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bob_super on Monday November 23 2015, @05:42PM
Yup, there's only one set of rebels against the Syrian regime.
Is the author working for Assad or Putin?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @05:59PM
Yup, there's only one set of rebels against the Syrian regime.
No, there is like 2 or 3, all pretty much the same as ISIL. Except maybe the Kurds - the actual sane party in that mess. But Kurds fighting ISIL are still terrorists group as per Turkey - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers%27_Party [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_opposition#/media/File:Syrian_civil_war.png [wikipedia.org]
http://cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=116905 [cartoonistgroup.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by zocalo on Monday November 23 2015, @06:15PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 4, Informative) by VLM on Monday November 23 2015, @06:16PM
The Turks are just spreading propaganda. About 1 in 4 people in Turkey are Kurds and the majority Turks hate the Kurds and would ethnically cleanse them if they could.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds_in_Turkey [wikipedia.org]
The situation is perfectly analogous to the Armenian Genocide where the same people in the same country are trying to get rid of minorities yet pretend they are not and anything that might have happened was all the victim's fault anyway and its none of the worlds business.
The Turks are basically genocidal bloodthirsty madmen, historically. Today, well, hard to say for sure. But I wouldn't trust anything they say about the Kurds.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @11:01PM
The relationship between the Turks and the Kurds is good bit more involved. For example, it was the Kurds who fought alongside the Turks to preserve what's left of Ottoman Empire into modern Turkey.
Do you know that it's the Kurds, Armenians' blood enemy since the ancient times, that mostly carried out the dirty work of exiling and killing the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire? It's notable that some Kurdish scholars openly concede it was a genocide against Armenians, acknowledging the Kurds' part in it.
You comment is ignorant, not informative. SN should consider adding "ignorant" moderation.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Monday November 23 2015, @06:46PM
Wasn't there a story, maybe a two months ago or so, about how a bunch of US-trained "rebels" had finished their training, were handed a bunch of weaponry, came across an ISIS checkpoint, where they promptly handed over all the weapons in return for safe passage? So now the US is going to 'vet' new trainee's a little more?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @09:48PM
I don't know. Why don't you provide a citation so we can evaluate your conspiracy theory...er, I mean, your claim?
(Score: 4, Informative) by davester666 on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:04AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11882195/US-trained-Division-30-rebels-betrayed-US-and-hand-weapons-over-to-al-Qaedas-affiliate-in-Syria.html [telegraph.co.uk]
(Score: 4, Informative) by n1 on Monday November 23 2015, @07:15PM
I try to make sure the journalists I read are working for one of the 5 American corporations that have an a stranglehold hold on the mainstream press across print and broadcasting, because you know they're impartial and have no vested interests.
In all seriousness though. James Corbett can be controversial, and he has published his work on GlobalResearch, which does appear to be very friendly with the Russian establishment. Following his work, I do not believe James Corbett is actively engaged in that. He also contributes to BoilingFrogsPost [boilingfrogspost.com]. That outlet was founded by Sibel Edmonds [wikipedia.org], an FBI whistleblower.
The point I was trying to make with submitting this article is, things to not happen in a vacuum. Blowback doesn't exist just for the Russians. The narrative for Syria is impossible to follow, there are so many factions and moving parts. To make it easier we just focus on one, and if people listen carefully, the main focus is on "removing Asaad" primarily and "fighting ISIS" is second. They're not even pretending they can beat ISIS, just bring the fight to them and contain them.
There is a lot of damning information out there about the west's role in training, sending arms and support to the 'opposition' and then being surprised that "the so-called Islamic State" suddenly has lots of equipment, weapons and now knows military tactics.
Michael Flynn, former DIA chief [rt.com]:
This is an extremely complex topic and TFA does not do it justice, but it's a more interesting and insightful analysis than "ooo arn't these angry muslims scary, what can we do?!" .. "we never saw this coming" despite evidence to the contrary.
Another point i'd like to make is, it's all good whilst we're talking about this, because at least we're not talking about Yemen. That's one whole country of rebels we definitely can't support in any way, or talk about at all. Their dictator is one of our guys and the Saudis are busy finally making use out of all that military hardware the west 'sold' them.
Anyway, we should probably getting back to fighting "the so-called Islamic State" in Syria using the same failed strategies of military escalation and funding 'the opposition' that has worked so well to stabilize Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya in recent years...
[ I use "the so-called Islamic State" as that's the preferred term used by the BBC. ]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday November 23 2015, @08:11PM
Agreed.
I prefer to refer to "the so-called Islamic State" as "the de-facto government of the Sunni areas" which is more accurate context, especially in when trying to address potential "solutions" to the "problem". And the last two sets of quotes are needed when one considers our allies of the Terror-sponsoring Sunni Islamic Dictatorship based in Riyadh.
Fun list:
- The locals support whoever doesn't behead of blows them up. Typically that means the same "tribe". Trusting others comes with decades of bad publicity.
- Russia supports Assad because of his strategic location.
- Iran (and therefore Baghdad) supports Assad and anyone bugging the Sunnis.
- China supports whoever lets Oil flow.
- Saudi Arabia supports the Sunnis, especially the crazy ones, but only as long as they don't get dangerously crazy.
- The West doesn't support Assad because of the others who do, but doesn't support the crazies either. The west claims to support the Sunni moderates, but by definitions they are the first ones getting blown up by pretty much everyone else.
- Turkey supports anyone preventing the Kurds from pointing out the reality of their autonomy, which means supporting the Sunnis, even the crazy ones.
- Nobody wants to give up an inch of land to try to make the borders match the realities of the people actually willing to live together.
I'm pretty sure we've started official world wars for less than that.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:14AM
Thanks Bob_Super. That's a nice, easy(ish) to follow post which explains things well.
I always get a bit confused over who supports Sunnis or Shia, and what the difference is. Then I remember that they're both a bunch of crazy, vicious killers, and there's no point in learning much more than that.
This whole situation looks even worse than Northern Ireland in the 1960's.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday November 23 2015, @06:02PM
The article is perhaps intentionally conflating two scales.
At the low financial end you have the mystery of how to mastermind buying an airline ticket and whipping something up out of bear skins and baling wire, or picking up a slightly jazzed up hunting rifle and a few boxes of ammo.
At the somewhat higher end you have vehicle launched anti-tank missiles which are microscopically more expensive than a box of COTS 7.62 rifle ammo you could buy at gander mountain.
The meta discussion carefully avoided is how transparent the borders and the system are to white collar criminals and drug importation criminals. Given that nothing is slowed down, why you'd assume something many orders of magnitude smaller and simpler would be impaired is a mystery.
Most likely its the usual "never let a crisis go to waste" grab for more civil liberties.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday November 23 2015, @08:01PM
Apparently getting at the money managers who are moving all this ISIS money is so embarrassing that those fighting ISIS have finally resorted to taking out the means of production, (oil tankers). The Russians with bombs, but the US prefer to use A10s and C130 gunships punching them full of holes (but leaving them in a patch-able state). Apparently the Obama administration is so fearful of killing one "civilian" drivers [infowars.com] that they have been letting entire convoys of tankers go untouched for over a year.
The US was secretly hoping ISIS would take out Assad, but with Russia's entry, they finally realize that isn't going to happen.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 23 2015, @06:03PM
I must say, I find the message management of the global Powers-That-Be incredibly tedious. This week, it's, "Let's all have our panties in a bunch over ISIS." Last week, and the week before, it was, "Hey, let's all get upset about a vanishingly small share of the world: transgender people." Or, the ongoing, "Hey let's all get worked up once again over a completely proven to be superfluous process, the US Presidential Election..."
Hey, you know what? Your media- and PR-mediated world bores the fuck out of me. Finding another 5% of output from your Internal Combustion Engine puts me to sleep. Another re-work of how dresses will look this Spring? Snooze.
Meanwhile, billions of people continue to be exploited by a small cadre of worthless, stupid fucks who use all that power to buy themselves Ferraris, coke, and hookers. Meanwhile, worthy efforts like battery technology or cancer research continue to play second fiddle to petroleum extraction. Meanwhile, we all get to learn how to eat insects to get our protein isn't really all that bad instead of how to not have worthless assholes drive the rest of us into penury.
ISIS are a bunch of barbaric assholes. Anyone who really wanted to end them would drop a sufficiently large quantity of daisy-cutters or tactical nuclear weapons on those people until they were all dead or got the message to not perpetrate horrible crimes against societies like ours. But because it's useful to have bogeymen like ISIS, the TPTB perpetuate them to get the profit margin they want.
I say, I want a different world entirely. I want a world where everyone is not talking about stupid, useless 19th century shit. I want a world that understands computers and science natively, and does not take for granted that a Great White Father in the Sky needs to oversee and manage it all.
I would greatly, greatly like a world in which human beings might find their inner potential and thus making the world a much, much better place instead of masses of tribes staying "on message."
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Informative) by BananaPhone on Monday November 23 2015, @06:16PM
FYI: We should refer to them as Daesh.
Pronounce it as Daysh or Dysh (Arabic dialect) Or Da'esh (unknown dialect, maybe bad pronunciation)
In Arabic it means Bigot and they find is offensive.
http://alt.usage.english.narkive.com/TiavfItR/how-do-you-pronounce-the-word-daesh-in-english [narkive.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday November 23 2015, @06:34PM
In Arabic it means Bigot and they find is offensive.
Not really. That's specifically listed as one of five common urban legends about the name:
https://www.freewordcentre.com/blog/2015/02/daesh-isis-media-alice-guthrie/ [freewordcentre.com]
Its an immense long article but it boils down to disrespecting their name and making some subtle fun of their pride over their otherwise holier than thou language and actions.
A nearly perfect analogy would be describing Angela Merkel, leader of Germany, for now anyway, as a Stasi officer Technically on paper she was never in the Stasi merely their affiliated youth group and she didn't really participate (lots of going thru the motions toward the end of the Soviet Union, and everyone was required to join so its not like she had any choice) and it kind of makes fun of her recent remarks about the USA monitoring her phone being like the Stasi. So its not technically false although it has baggage.
Maybe a similar analogy would be calling a Catholic a Papist although thats stretching it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday November 23 2015, @06:40PM
Oh I just got the perfect analogy. Edit button where are you? Calling them Daesh is almost perfect analogy to addressing Mr Putin as "Czar of the Commies". Its just tongue in cheek enough, just knowingly inaccurate enough to be insulting, just inaccurate enough to prove you don't give a F what he thinks, totally disrespectful...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @01:01AM
Kind of like Pilate calling Jesus the "King of the Jews".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gman003 on Monday November 23 2015, @07:01PM
Like others have said, that's mostly a myth. They don't consider "daesh" to be particularly offensive.
However, I do advise not calling them simply "the Islamic State", simply because that's their preferred name and ultimate goal - they want to be the *only* Islamic country, and to have all Muslims under their command (and everyone else dead). The thing that absolutely terrifies them is the idea that Muslims might not actually want to join a suicidal armageddon cult-country. The thing they fear most is that they'll be a military dictatorship with no serfs to sustain them.
Even just calling them "the Islamic State of suchandsuch place" reinforces that idea that they're just a local power, and that they don't command all of Islam. It's like the difference between describing Soylent as "a news site for nerds" and describing it as "the nerd news site". Subtle but significant difference. Plus "Isis" is easier and more fun to say than "IS".
(Oh, and that fear of theirs is also why they hate refugees even more than Western conservatives do - the idea that people could choose to flee to the depraved and cowardly west rather than stay in their glorious god-given land is like kryptonite to them.)
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday November 23 2015, @07:51PM
Personally, I think we ought to just call them what they call themselves...
I mean, are we going around renaming all the "Peoples' Republics"? Not really.
The only thing this renaming crap is going to do is confuse people and make the organization seem like less of a threat. Use the same name they use in their press releases so everyone is clear where they're coming from.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @09:31PM
If lets say Iceland renamed themselves "The peoples republic of the world" everyone would still call them Iceland.
Just like if you renamed yourself "The king of the world" most people would just call you conceited. I see no reason to call them what they want.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:50PM
agreed, now where to visit next week, Ceylon, Rhodesia, or Belgian Congo?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @09:55PM
Actually, they consider it offensive enough that they have threatened to cut out the tongue of anyone they find calling them that. Go google it yourself. (I don't have the time right now to do it for you.)
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:04AM
I really don't care what they call themselves or what we ought to call them. They attack Western Civilization as they have, so let's all respond such that we can all call them 'dead as doornails.'
Let's not obsess about them or let them be used as an excuse to contravene more of the Constitution. Let's kill them dead, summarily, and move on. They're not worth more of our time than that.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @06:24PM
and does not take for granted that a Great White Father in the Sky needs to oversee and manage it all
But at least you are not a bigot? Am I right?
(Score: 2) by KilroySmith on Monday November 23 2015, @06:27PM
And how many non-assholes (i.e. innocent civilians just trying to get on with their lives) are you willing to kill to try to make your little fantasy here true? When Daesh captures a town, are you suggesting the Vietnam-era "We destroyed the town (and all the people in it) in order to save it" attitude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%E1%BA%BFn_Tre [wikipedia.org]?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday November 23 2015, @06:32PM
I was gonna earn myself an easy Godwin point, but I'll got with "Brown lives don't matter" instead.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:18AM
C'mon, we're already showing a total disregard for the lives of those people anyway. If we actually tried to care, we'd put our own boots on the ground and try to separate out the 'good' Syrians from the 'bad' Syrians. But we haven't, because American/European lives are worth more than any number of those people.
Originally, I would have said, hey, let's bomb the crap out of Assad and Damascus. Let's help the anti-Assad forces triumph. They could wind up as bad as Assad, but at least we could say we tried. Now, with the sort-of good anti-Assad and ISIS factions in the mix, I'd say, fuck them all.
It's not really optimal that Iran annexes parts of Syria they feel they can, or that Turkey annexes other parts, or Iraq does others, or what-have-you. But, what do we, the West and the rest of the world, care? Is it not most important that we annihilate every 3rd-world dickhead that feels he can sow chaos in our cities and societies? Should not the overwhelming message we send not be, "I don't give a fuck what your 2000-year old feud is, but bring your shit to our lands and we will turn your shithole desert into an shiny expanse of glass?"
As far as I'm concerned at this point, everything from Damascus to the Iranian border should be shiny, smooth, and glassy.
Fully, fully done with the Middle East.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by KilroySmith on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:35AM
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, you are a racist asshole with little in the way of redeeming human values. You've decided that 100 million men, women, and children should die, confusing them with the murderous bastards running countries, or the murderous bastards attempting to overthrow the first bastards.
You are no different than them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @05:32PM
In all fairness, they know- and admit- what they are, so there's a difference in the degree of honesty and self-insight, at least. ;-)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday November 23 2015, @06:43PM
I sympathize with your view, but...that's kind of what created the problem in the first place. Knocking out the governments in Iraq, Libya and (almost) Syria is a large part of what created the power vacuum that let ISIS become a threat in the first place. Doing this also provided ISIS with the propaganda needed to motivate an entire new generation of terrorists. France, the US, the UK, Russia - plenty of countries have delivered billions of dollars of weapons to terrorist groups. Sort of like trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.
The answer to barbaric cultures is the same as it always has been: Either conquer them or leave them to their own devices. Colonialism (conquering) is now regarded as a bad thing, even though many countries were arguably better off as colonies. However, the massive interventions that replaced colonialism - both military interventions and massive aid programs - are the worst of both worlds.
Maybe some societies don't want to follow Western ideals. That's their choice, fine, live and let live. But then, it's time for the other alternative: leave them alone. Really. As long as a society is fundamentally incompatible with the West: no military intervention, no aid, no business, no tourism, no refugees, nothing. Total embargo. Let the society go its own own way.
If a society decides it would like to join the West, that's fine. However, as a prerequisite, the society must demonstrate a commitment to the essentials of Western culture: internal peace, rule of law, and respect for human rights.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday November 23 2015, @06:54PM
Weird tragedy of the commons thing goes on where the first 90% of resource extraction takes 10% of the effort so if you're the leader of empire ABC you need to extract from country Q before your competitor empire XYZ extracts, or else XYZ will have more resources and therefore overpower you at the next war.
Then you get tied into colonial economic "issues" where keeping the colony under continuous administration costs more than you're earning, and what little you're earning is really pissing off the local populace. Meanwhile the historical equiv of SJWs are breathing down your neck back home. So then you want to dump them as a colony.
The border cases are the big problem. We're BFF with Japan now, but where does a place like Turkey fit on the spectrum of civilized / uncivilized?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gnuman on Monday November 23 2015, @07:11PM
Knocking out the governments in Iraq, Libya and (almost) Syria is a large part of what created the power vacuum that let ISIS become a threat in the first place.
Aha, but these are NOT the same things!
1. Iraq - purely result of US invasion and subsequent de-Ba'athasisation (or however you spell it) that led to current clusterfuck that is Iraq. Iraq government is mostly divided into 3 faction, official, Iran supported group of majority. Kurdistan section up north, and the ISIL supporters "fuck the majority oppressors" western part.
2. Libya was a result of,
a) Gaddafi's firing of hundreds of thousands of workers from public jobs to "revitalize the private sector". This happened few months before revolt.
b) Arab Spring uprisings that started civil war in Libya
c) French-led campaign against Gaddafi.
d) NO effort from French and others to actually enforce demilitarization of waring parties and building of actual dialogue
e) ISIL is now in Libya too
3. Syria is a result of protests (see Arab Spring) and government's military-style crackdown on those protests instead of talking. Then Saudi Arabia and Quatar and others sending weapons to "opposition" is how we end up with Syria and ISIL.
I completely fail to fathom how politicians have learned nothing from history. You can't win peace through conflict and you can't leave a place without a working bureaucracy and administration. Take US role in above and what they initially did,
1. they caused it
2. they played backseat role in it
3. they ignored it
but it all ended up the same mess. We need nation building and real "boots on the ground" to bring an end to this madness - you know, like it was done after WWII (east or west doesn't matter, as long as you get order)
If a society decides it would like to join the West, that's fine. However, as a prerequisite, the society must demonstrate a commitment to the essentials of Western culture: internal peace, rule of law, and respect for human rights.
These things have nothing to do with "the west". China and Cuba have these things too. And before you start screaming "human rights",
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-mile-border-zone-map [aclu.org]
Actually READ what human rights mean and how your country is breaking some of them,
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html [un.org]
For example, how many human rights are lost to *former* prisoners in US?
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday November 23 2015, @07:37PM
Granted, I oversimplified. And I probably shouldn't have said "the West", but I'm at a loss for a short, meaningful term that encompasses all of the civilized countries on the planet. Sure, every country has its problems, and no country quite manages to live up to the ideals in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
However, there is a real distinction between countries (societies) that agree with those principles, and ones that object to them. That is such a fundamental difference that I do believe there needs to be a serious wall between the two.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @09:23PM
Another factor in Arab Spring was the example of an African American being elected POTUS, in my opinion. That was totally unexpected.
Of course Arab Spring has been a mixed blessing at best for the USA, geopolitically, but I think it's best to take our medicine now, under conditions that may be somewhat favorable to the West. Whenever and wherever these Arab monarchies blow up, there's going to be massive trouble that will most likely last for decades.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @10:49PM
I completely fail to fathom how politicians have learned nothing from history.
I've come to the conclusion that the sorts of sociopaths and psychopaths that we have been electing all these years basically don't have a brain cell to spare for thinking rationally or analyzing logically. When they are only capable of thinking short-term and worrying only about money and re-election, they can't be expected to think in terms of doing something useful for mankind.
Democracy is a failure... too bad about the alternatives.
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheLink on Tuesday November 24 2015, @07:35AM
I disagree. Actually the Syria and Iraq stuff are related. Maybe even the Libya one too (I haven't looked into that one as much).
I completely fail to fathom how politicians have learned nothing from history
That's because you haven't been paying enough attention to what is really happening. They have learned from history. Much of what has happened was what the US Gov actually wanted!
See:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified-u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis.html [washingtonsblog.com]
The released document: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf [judicialwatch.org]
See also:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq [theguardian.com]
Open your eyes and see. The USA repeatedly plays with fire and pretends to be innocent or even the good guy when others get burned. Or worse they pretend to be the victim.
I'm not saying ISIS aren't evil and aren't responsible for the evil they do, I'm not saying fire doesn't burn either. Just pointing a finger at the one intentionally starting fires and fanning the flames.
Even after the fire was blazing the USA supplied arms and training to the rebels fighting the Syrian Gov, many of those rebels became friendly with ISIS or even joined the ISIS. Whether that was due to incompetence or not it was still part of the greater original plan mentioned.
Of course it doesn't help that the USA's ally funds the ISIS either: https://theintercept.com/2015/10/26/bbc-protects-uks-close-ally-saudi-arabia-with-incredibly-dishonest-and-biased-editing/ [theintercept.com]
Last but not least: https://richardajonesdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/twitter.jpg [wordpress.com]
https://richardajonesdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/clear-as-mud.jpg [wordpress.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:27AM
I think the best thing we could do for the muslim world is to accelerate the transition of the industrialized economies from oil to home-grown, renewable energy. That would pretty much put an end to it.
That notwithstanding, I know the complex tribal and other history of the factions in the Middle East. You know what? I couldn't give a fuck anymore. They have drawn too much attention from the good people of the West for far too long. If they insist on bringing their shit into our countries, we ought to now respond by wiping all of them off the face of the Earth and rendering their lands uninhabitable. No more prevarication, no more calculation, no more bullshit, just a final exclamation point to end the history of the Middle East once and for all. No one else has had the wherewithall or the moxy to do it. We now must. If we must roll Israel and the "Holy" land in with the rest, it's a small price to pay. Those people just cannot fucking get along, so they must go.
The enduring lesson for the rest of the peoples of the Earth must be, if you want to live with others, or live by yourselves, awesome. But threaten the lives or freedom of our people, and we will respond with overwhelming, total, and final force.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 24 2015, @11:10AM
I differ about colonialism being a "bad thing". The real problem is, it is so very expensive. England/Great Britain found that maintaining an empire was a major headache. Quell a rebellion here, counter an outside threat there, on and on - most colonies absorb more money than they can ever return to the emperor. Prestige doesn't count for much, as a currency.
If/when we ever get off of this planet, and put people in space, we'll learn that lesson all over again. It might take fifty years, it might take two hundred years, but we'll learn that we can't dictate to a space empire because we can't afford to. To many ships, to many troops, to much money will be required, so we'll eventually cut them all loose (after some crazy casualty figures on both sides, probably) and let them run things as they see fit.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gravis on Monday November 23 2015, @06:23PM
i rather not have drivel some random blogger with an ax to grind, show up on this site. seriously editor, even if there is no news, don't let stupid shit like this through.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday November 23 2015, @06:27PM
You can buy a lot of guns and ammo for $9,999.99...
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Monday November 23 2015, @06:37PM
As if. Have you tried having a transaction now a days in the US for $2500+ in cash? Good luck. Last time I went to withdraw $2700 from my bank account they gave me looks like I was robbing the place. Sorry I didn't know I had to call a week in advance to get some of my money out.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday November 23 2015, @06:43PM
Actually, a lot less than you might think. Well, I'm assuming you're going with quality as opposed to quantity.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday November 23 2015, @06:55PM
Long term reliability and maintainability often is not a very high priority.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Kromagv0 on Monday November 23 2015, @07:34PM
Well that old soviet and other com block surplus stuff is cheap and can take a beating. A bunch Mosin-Nagent rifles and a shit ton of ammo 7.62x54r ammo could be had for that price even at US retail prices. For $10,000 you could get around 100 rifles or around 100,000 rounds of surplus ammo (or you could the last time I payed attention to the price of surplus ammo and M91/30s at retail which was a few years back $90/rifle and $75/880 round spam can). So lets say 50 rifles and 50,000 rounds of ammo. Those rifles are accurate enough and can take a beating. If one would prefer you could go with the venerable AK and the 7.62x39 ammo as I hear AKs can be had for about $25 in that area of the world and I would imagine that ammo could be gotten for around $0.02-$0.03 per round for them so you would get even more bang for your buck.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday November 23 2015, @07:46PM
I was just pointing out that terrorism is crazy cheap. Nothing specific to guns intended. It buys a bunch of fertilizer, too...
(Score: 2, Informative) by kanweg on Monday November 23 2015, @07:36PM
From what I know, is that money isn't transferred through banks. If you're in country A and want to transfer money to a person in country B, you approach a money man A' and give him the money. He'll contact a money man B' in country B who will give the equivalent money to the recipient. Now, A' owes B' money and they'll keep score about that. When B' needs to transfer money to country A, he'll contact money man A' who will then furnish the money.
Of course, more money men can be involved in a transaction.
The money men get paid for their services. All this is untraceable, of course.
Bert
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @07:50PM
Standard procedure.
When I want to transfer $1M, I pull it out of my ass, give it to man A' who gives it to man B' who gives it to you, to put it in yours.
Who needs banks?
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Monday November 23 2015, @07:55PM
GP is correct. The system is known as Hawala. It is exactly how he describes it. And it is very impossible to trace.
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Monday November 23 2015, @07:57PM
Apoligies, the site does not handle embeded URLs (recent change?), I meant to link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawala [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24 2015, @07:55AM
It's not exactly how he describes it. He said:
I pull it out of my ass, give it to man A' who gives it to man B' who gives it to you, to put it in yours.
Who needs banks?
It's more of :
I pull it out of my ass, give it to man A' who _tells_ his cousin B' in a different country to give a near equivalent amount to the recipient
After a number of transactions and some time the man and his cousin settle the net accumulated difference.
The difference between his explanation and Hawala is with Hawala ZERO cash is actually transferred across borders at the time of the transaction. All that is transferred is information.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @07:59PM
Wow, Soylent is really going downhill. The Corbett Report, seriously?
Check where the majority of links in that article point to.
Also that anything links to globalresearch.ca is suspect to begin with.
(Score: 2) by n1 on Monday November 23 2015, @08:37PM
As I said above:
I do not agree with his opinion on everything, I am no fan of globalresearch and Putin's Russia is no better than any major power for foreign policy, and i'm inclined to believe even worse domestically. James Corbett can offer some very interesting and informative perspectives.
That said, there's only one link on TFA that I found for globalresearch. The important information is provided by other sources, including The Guardian and The Atlantic. Where RT is used as a source, it's quoting a press briefing.
Now I am all up for having the summary and article refuted or alternative perspectives being offered, there is still a lot more to this story.