International Jihadis and the West's Response

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]phala wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I don’t dismiss the fact that we armed the mujaheddin, which, believe it or not, did not consist of only bin laden. I said we didn’t radicalize them.
In fact, we tried to help them. So grateful were they, that they took our weapons and pointed them at us after the fall of the USSR.
So yeah, you can blame U.S. policy. We tried to help the people and they were so grateful they have been trying to murder each and everyone of us since.
I am not sure how your expecting we should have better dealt with it? Perhaps we should have let the Soviets steam roll the place. In hindsight, that would have turned out better for us. [/quote]

The mujaheddin were chosen specifically because they were the most radical group around; Radicals fight harder than non-radicals, and the US policymakers knew exactly what they were doing;

Reagan even equated these evil fucks to the founding fathers of the US;

We didnt try to help the people, no country is going to spend considerable resources simply to help other people, as it shouldn’t be expected to;
We were there to stop the soviets from gaining influence in a key region to the world, and im grateful that we did;

I could even sympathize with the idea that mistakes are made sometimes, and the mujaheddin’s growth in both power and monstrosity was not expected;

But, when in our constant struggle to retain control/influence over the mid-east, we do the same thing over and over and over again, and then fucking cry about islamic extremism in the middle east, it starts becoming a fool’s game;

Only way out of this is tech innovation or to just go in and purge the middle east of its inhabitants, I choose the former, I can already see some here wouldnt mind the latter; [/quote]

Afghanistan is not really in the middle east, they don’t have anything we care about unless it’s opium. It’s basically a useless country for American interests. They also asked for our help, we didn’t show up uninvited. To say that we are in someway responsible for islamic extremism is devoid of fact. They use it as an excuse. It wouldn’t matter what we did, or what we do, they are driven by hate and that’s not an emotion anybody but the hater can control. If we did nothing they would accuse us of doing nothing.

242

[quote]pat wrote:
Afghanistan is not really in the middle east, they don’t have anything we care about unless it’s opium. It’s basically a useless country for American [/quote]

Yes. NOW it is; Soviet advancement into a key region for the world was a huge issue and our primary motivation for arming and bringing them to power though;

Im not saying we are responsible for islamic extremism, im saying we supported and nurtured it in

Afghanistan
Iran
Syria

we will just have to agree to disagree since we cant agree on a fundamental fact;

243

From what I’ve read, the actual Taliban was bred in Pakistani extremist Madrases. The Mujaheddin we were backing the most were run by a guy named Ahmad Shah Massoud. If the US is guilty of doing anything, it’s not supporting the Afghan Government once the Soviets withdrew. That is what sent the country spiraling into anarchy which was easy picking for the Taliban who marched over the border and took over the country in 1998. It’s also the reason why Massoud was assassinated by Al-Qaeda a day before the 9-11 attacks, because he was pro-Western and his army would have (and did) route the Taliban and send them running for the hills.

As far as Syria goes, we were wrong because we were giving aid to the so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels. To say we backed ISIS is not exactly accurate. ISIS, as it is now known, was once called Al-Qaeda in Iraq, headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Assad gave his organization free reign to attack US troops in Iraq. When the US withdrew, AQIR, now known as ISIL turned on Assad during the civil war. Idiot Obama called these guys the J.V. team, when in reality they were a force to be reckoned with. Even Al-Nursa, the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda, cut ties with them because they are so extreme. The rest is modern history, so to speak.

As far as Iran goes, I don’t even want to go there. If you want to believe we are to blame because we supported the Shah, I ask you, what other alternative did we have during the cold war. Were you even alive during the cold war to know what it was like? What should we have done, short of an amphibious invasion of Lebanon during the civil war in the 80’s to crush a growing Hezbollah? Or an invasion of a newly invigorated revolutionary Iran when we were war weary and in no shape to fight or even to win a war after the Vietnam years? How could we have handled the Iranian issue differently from the beginning to prevent the Islamic Revolution from happening in the first place? Like I asked what other alternative did we have but to support the anti-Soviet, pro-Western Shah?

244

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
From what I’ve read, the actual Taliban was bred in Pakistani extremist Madrases. The Mujaheddin we were backing the most were run by a guy named Ahmad Shah Massoud.[/quote]

This is just flat out false; The only truth in this is that Pakistan was responsible for what is now the taliban. The US funded the insurgents in Afghanistan by channeling money and arms through Pakistan, who chose to give to support Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, another Mujaheddin leader far more extremist and rutheless than Massoud;

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

As far as Syria goes, we were wrong because we were giving aid to the so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels. To say we backed ISIS is not exactly accurate. ISIS, as it is now known, was once called Al-Qaeda in Iraq, headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Assad gave his organization free reign to attack US troops in Iraq. When the US withdrew, AQIR, now known as ISIL turned on Assad during the civil war. Idiot Obama called these guys the J.V. team, when in reality they were a force to be reckoned with. Even Al-Nursa, the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda, cut ties with them because they are so extreme. The rest is modern history, so to speak.[/quote]

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is only a part in the overall context of how ISIS came to power; The modern day ISIS is a merger of his original group with a bunch of rag-tags crews who grew to considerable power during the Syrian protests, specifically al-baghdadi’s group; Mind you, we financed and armed them.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

As far as Iran goes, I don’t even want to go there. If you want to believe we are to blame because we supported the Shah, I ask you, what other alternative did we have during the cold war. Were you even alive during the cold war to know what it was like? What should we have done, short of an amphibious invasion of Lebanon during the civil war in the 80’s to crush a growing Hezbollah? Or an invasion of a newly invigorated revolutionary Iran when we were war weary and in no shape to fight or even to win a war after the Vietnam years? How could we have handled the Iranian issue differently from the beginning to prevent the Islamic Revolution from happening in the first place? Like I asked what other alternative did we have but to support the anti-Soviet, pro-Western Shah?[/quote]

Ill admit that I dont know about this so called “invigorated revolutionary Iran,” but talking to people from Iran, and looking at picture pre-islamic revolution and now, certainly casts a much better picture of that Iran than this one; Maybe you can enlighten me;

and it seems your only argument for Iran is “well, we had no choice but to support extremist muslims, so why are we to blame,”

245

[quote]phala wrote:

This is just flat out false; The only truth in this is that Pakistan was responsible for what is now the taliban. The US funded the insurgents in Afghanistan by channeling money and arms through Pakistan, who chose to give to support Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, another Mujaheddin leader far more extremist and rutheless than Massoud; [/quote]

Are you saying the Pakistani’s supported Hekmatyar with our money? Hekmatyar is our enemy today. The Taliban crushed the other Afghan rebels in 1998 by attacking from Pakistan.

This Wiki article sums it up: Taliban - Wikipedia

[quote]
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is only a part in the overall context of how ISIS came to power; The modern day ISIS is a merger of his original group with a bunch of rag-tags crews who grew to considerable power during the Syrian protests, specifically al-baghdadi’s group; Mind you, we financed and armed them.[/quote]

Al-Baghdadi was the head of AQIR. So you are saying we funded Al-Qaeda in Iraq once it moved it’s fight to Syria?

No, I am saying we had no choice but to support the Shah. The Shah and our support for him is the reason for the Revolution? No?

In the height of the Cold War, what other choice did we have other than to back anti-Soviet countries and leaders? Iran is on Russia’s border, it would not make sense not to support an ally there. And what about Afghanistan? Should we have done as Pat has said and let the Soviets commit genocide there? Too bad we didn’t have a crystal ball to show us the outcome of our actions back in 1979.

246

yes to the first two, does it shock you?

I remember the Syrian ambassador coming on CNN to talk to that tool Cooper and saying over and over again

“Anderson the US is arming al-qaeda terrorists these are not rebels” and being told “you are a liar, you have no proof, blablabla”

Can probably still find the youtube clip, lol; Then there was the subsequent release of information showing that was infact, true;

Also idk what the soviets planned to do in Afghanistan, “genocide” seems extreme, but apparently im a stronger opponent of religious extremism because I would rather have those “godless commies” in charge than what we have now;

247

phala,

See if you can post the youtube clip.

Yes I agree about the Communists, but try telling that to someone in 1979.

I agree so much that I can never watch Rambo III again. :slight_smile:

248
249

youll have to watch the entire thing to get full context;

the parts related to our discussion start around 10:05

250

I watched it and it is the Syrian Ambassador to the UN. In other words, this guy is part of the Assad regime, so of course he’d want people to believe the US is funding al-Qaeda elements. But when Anderson presses him and asks him point blank “Are you saying the US is funding al-qaeda, salafists,” the Ambassador says “don’t put words in my mouth Anderson.”

What I got out of this was he didn’t really say it in his opinion and if he did you could chalk it up to pro-regime propaganda.

251

Is it maybe that he didn’t want to say anything direct without first corresponding with his administration? He doesnt want to make any direct statements so early on in the situation? You can see the guy quite obviously believes a cohort of nations were supporting terrorist rebels, or at the very least, turning a blind eye to them, during these protests;

I understand that he could be spewing pro-regime propaganda and have pro-regime bias, but the aftermath of what has happened to Syria since then is certainly not the result of “peaceful protesters”

There are files now released showing US cooperation with these “peaceful protesters,” and hell, there are pictures of john mccain having a good-ol-boys round-table discussion with these “peaceful protesters”

The US calling those people “peaceful protesters” when there were reports of police killings and shootouts during these “peaceful protests” is equivalent to calling the burning down of Ferguson and Baltimore, “peaceful protests,” except way worse because these were organized, disciplined terrorists and not some random hoodrats

252

heres another good watch; and yes, I understand its Assad, but just hear out his arguments and tell me what you think is BS given the aftermath of what has happened since 2011 until now;

253

I’ll watch the video soon.

But here’s an ironic thought…everyone either blames Bush or Obama for the creation of ISIS…follow this. What are the goals of ISIS? They are trying to create an Islamic Caliphate. They are not intent on striking the West because of grievances which occurred when we invaded Iraq. They are intent on striking the West and, hell, anyone who opposes them, because they are intent on spreading Islam and killing infidels. This logic, or lack there of, probably would have occurred had the US invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam or if he was toppled by rebels from his own country. See Egypt for instance. No US invasion there, yet the MB were the first ones voted to lead the newly democratic country once Musharraf was deposed. Given the right circumstances the existence of ISIS was probably inevitable one way or another.

254

[quote]phala wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Afghanistan is not really in the middle east, they don’t have anything we care about unless it’s opium. It’s basically a useless country for American [/quote]

Yes. NOW it is; Soviet advancement into a key region for the world was a huge issue and our primary motivation for arming and bringing them to power though;

Im not saying we are responsible for islamic extremism, im saying we supported and nurtured it in

Afghanistan
Iran
Syria

we will just have to agree to disagree since we cant agree on a fundamental fact; [/quote]

We did nothing of the sort. People are responsible for their own choices and actions. We didn’t make them crazy terrorist nuts, we didn’t foster any sort of environment for it. All we did was flood the region with cash, they became corrupt on their own.

255

[quote]pat wrote:
We did nothing of the sort. People are responsible for their own choices and actions. We didn’t make them crazy terrorist nuts, we didn’t foster any sort of environment for it. All we did was flood the region with cash, they became corrupt on their own.[/quote]

Either you can’t read or you’re arguing just for the sake of argument;

Either way, this is becoming a massive waste of time;

My conclusion, support alternative energy and the people trying to make it a feasibly reality; take care

256

[quote]phala wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
We did nothing of the sort. People are responsible for their own choices and actions. We didn’t make them crazy terrorist nuts, we didn’t foster any sort of environment for it. All we did was flood the region with cash, they became corrupt on their own.[/quote]

Either you can’t read or you’re arguing just for the sake of argument;

Either way, this is becoming a massive waste of time;

My conclusion, support alternative energy and the people trying to make it a feasibly reality; take care [/quote]

Have a good one…

258

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]phala wrote:

…My conclusion, support alternative energy and the people trying to make it a feasibly reality…

[/quote]

What does this actually mean? Be specific.[/quote]

Well, I just feel like the main goal should be to find another source of energy that can either completely replace, or at-least greatly reduce our need for oil;

If we all agree that that is true, I feel like the next logical step is to have the government support companies in the private industry trying to achieve this; Idk how exactly they should support them; loans, tax credits, subsidies, maybe a combination of a bunch of things? idk;

Normally, I believe there should be limited govt interference in the private industry, but I feel like a legitimate alternative energy solution will take a lot of R&D, failing, tweaking, innovation, failing again, etc etc;

All of that is very capital intensive and requires the people involved to be truly thinking of the long-term benefits for the company, the country, and even the world actually;

When I think of companies similar to what im describing above, i think of

Solar-City
Various companies looking into fracking
Transatomic power

and im sure there are many others out there;

259

I just read today that the Syrian Regime is actually helping ISIS advance on Aleppo. And further I recall reading how the regime left ISIS alone while combatting other rebel groups. A parallel to this would be how when Syria invaded Lebanon it disbanded all the other rebel groups but left Hezbollah alone because it was anti-Israeli. Maybe they want to leave ISIS alone for some reason.

Edit- and now I know why: because other pro-western rebels are in control of Aleppo and it benefits Assad to have them fight each other. Reminds me of how during WWII the Soviets let the Nazis & Polish freedom fighters battle it out before advancing on Warsaw.

260

Then none was for the party,
Then all were for the State;
Then the rich man helped the poor,
And the poor man loved the great;
Then lands were fairly portioned’
Then spoils were fairly sold;
The Romans were like brothers
In the brave days of old.

Now Roman is to Roman
More hateful than a foe;
The Tribunes beard the high
And the fathers grind the low
As we wax hot in faction’
In battle we wax cold;
And men fight not as they fought
In the brave days of old.

Thomas Babington Macaulay

I quote this in the beginning not to glorify war or warriors, but to point out that the real problem at the center of this discussion is not the capabilities or actions of ISIS; it’s with us. We - like the Romans of old - are no longer the people we once were.

The problem is one that becomes inevitable when a society becomes so comfortable and complacent in its own sovereignty that it finds demanding competence, integrity, and a sense of honor from it’s leadership…and a sense of duty in the general populace regarding the overall good…to be inconvenient. It is a problem that has played out in practically every great society to it’s eventual ruin since the dawn of recorded history, and that same ruin is one that we Americans will likely face ourselves if we do not wake up and learn from the mistakes of our ancestors.

War is not glorious or pretty or glamorous. War isn’t “just”…and it’s never fair, since war without collateral damage and civilian casualties will never be possible. No; war is an ugly, brutal, bloody thing; unfathomably expensive in terms of both life and resource. We desperately need leaders who understand this’ and understand that war should always be the absolute last resort…and viable then only to protect the lives, property, and liberty of our people. It should also go without saying that declaring war for the sake of acquiring resources or to avenge some past “loss of face” should be considered a crime of high treason. Past generations felt that war to stop the oppression of others was also defensible, and I concede that such a position could possibly have merit today under very narrow circumstances, chiefly that such oppression be on a scale no less than attempted genocide, which is effectively what ISIS is doing. But…

Assuming these criteria be met, how then should war be waged? As we Americans did in Vietnam, Korea, or more recently, as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq? Absolutely not. Right now, America’s leaders worry far too much about whether or not the countries of the Middle East like us. Gaining someone’s favor is impossible if you don’t first have their respect.

The fact that we were duped into Iraq by an administration which had no qualms at all about lying to the American people time and again about why we were invading a country that posed no threat at all to us notwithstanding, you cannot win a “shooting” war with “spin”, PR, propaganda, or even education; the raw emotion stirred in your enemy as they see their sons and comrades fall is simply too strong and will always overcome all reason. such is the way of blood…and to some extent, the “fog of war” itself. It is for this reason that a war which is allowed to drag out across one generation and into the next becomes more difficult to finally end by orders of magnitude. By far then, the most “humane” war…the one which damages both side to the least extent…is inevitably the shortest one. Alexander the Great, Atilla, Sun Tzu, Genghis Khan, George Patton, Winston Churchhill - all knew and accepted this fundamental rule: If you must fight, do so savagely, relentlessly, and without regard for any country or people’s opinion of your tactics. Do not allow your enemy so much as a single moment to breathe, react, or adjust until not a single one of them remains with both (note please, that I did not say “either”) the will and the means to stand against you. Any mention of “an appropriate, measured response” or concern over “the world’s opinion regarding our action” will not be found in their writings.

Somehow and for whatever reasons (oddly enough, perhaps because they themselves have lost a sense of the value of a human life), our government and military leadership have forgotten this basic truth…even though world history is replete with reminders of it. the current situation with ISIS will be with us until we elect leaders who remember.