Navy Cruiser Seizes Huge Iranian Arms Cache in Arabian Sea

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Trump Gurl, Feb 16, 2020.

  1. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    None of the weapons I've seen listed would be considered "sophisticated". Most of them are decades old technology at best.
     
  2. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A Howitzer is damn sophisticated in comparison to an AK-47 - but as usual you are being obtuse - in your desperate attempt to avoid the fact that we armed Al Qaeda in Syria - with enough equipment supplies and support to take on a nation state for 6 years. It was not just the sophistication of the weapons but the massive mount of weapons.

    "What part of TOW missiles and Shoulder launched surface to air missiles - do you not consider sophisticated ?" Did you expect them to get F22-Raptor's ? What did you think was being referred to ? - and why this mindless comment to begin with if other than completely avoid the main point of the discussion ?

    The point of this discussion is the raging fact that arming these terrorist nut jobs was far worse than anything Iran has ever done - and this is one of at least 5 examples I have given you - all which are far worst than anything Iran has ever done.
     
  3. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think Iran being directly responsible for the killing of hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq (which were not the least bit of a threat to Iran) to be much worse than anything the U.S. has even considered doing.
     
  4. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course. No question about it.
    I agree with that as well. However, I don't find the narratives here all that genuinely informative. Not even about a more distant event, such as the 1953 coup.

    To begin with, I do think the 1953 coup is dated if it is meant to explain sentiments in Iran today. Its real import today is mainly in the similarity in tactics used to undermine the current Iranian regime to the tactics used to undermine Dr. Mossadegh.

    Its import, at the time of the revolution, on the other hand, was fundamentally about denying the Shah legitimacy in the eyes of the Iranian public and, more accurately, among their 'sources of emulation' (whether the traditional sources of emulation among Iran's clerics, in their seminaries and among their flock, or the more modern sources of emulation for a growing number of Iranians, namely Iran's western educated intellectuals and their 'seminaries', namely Iranian universities and their flock of current and former students and such). It was the Shah's 'brutality', 'torture', or such, that robbed him of legitimacy and saw his regime fall. It was the fact that Iranians across the political spectrum in Iran, whether on the right or left, saw the Shah (rightly or wrongly) as a foreign puppet doing the bidding of foreign powers. Many Iranians came to believe that what truly separated them from being the Great Power and the Great Civilization the Shah's propaganda would trumpet on a daily basis, was the Shah himself. The anti-American and anti-Western sentiments unleashed by the Iranian revolution were certainly colored by the 1953 coup to some extent, but the forces behind those sentiments were far more involved historically than that one event -- or the real or alleged crimes committed by the Shah.

    As for the import of the coup for the course of Iranian history more generally, that is really speculative. We cannot be sure what would have happened but for the 1953 coup? Now, if went back a bit further, and asked: what would have happened if the Brits hadn't tried to undermine Dr. Mossadegh in the first place, then we could more realistically paint a positive picture for Iran's future if the coup hadn't taken place. But by the time of the 1953 coup, after all the troubles caused by mainly British machinations to undermine support for Dr. Mossadegh (who had earlier had managed to rally all of the main voices in Iranian politics behind his oil nationalization campaign), his government and power was already weakened substantially. Weakened enough that, even without "Operation Ajax", the same forces that removed him from power could have done so without Kermit Roosevelt. (In fact, to some extent, they did as Operation Ajax by itself was a failure of sorts, leading the Shah to flee the country and for the Eisenhower administration to even pull the plug on the operation. Kermit Roosevelt, however, stuck around for a few days to see the military coup and the crowds rented for this purpose restore the Shah to his throne). Or maybe a hundred and one other things, which we can speculate about but never know.

    My basic point is this: while I am totally in favor of the non-interventionist agenda that has used its own (largely) fictional portrait of the 1953 coup to make its point, and find that a lot more appealing (and even somewhat more factual) than the contrary propaganda narratives which seek to justify the whole exercise in propaganda, lies, and the imperialism which those lies and propaganda were and are meant to assist, I have a problem with politics intruding on a genuinely scholarly understanding of issues regardless of the side promoting the propaganda. Especially when even the former propaganda narrative is (wittingly or not) meant to bolster another form of imperialism. Genuine progress, development, and a truly productive interaction between Iran's (every profound) historical and cultural background with the rest of the world, can best occur when Iran is left truly alone. When outside forces stop meddling in its affairs (regardless of the forces of 'good' or 'evil' they supposedly intend to help in the process), and also stop trying to limit Iran's reach to something less than it would be without such meddling on its own merit. The good thing about Iran is that it has no claim nor aspiration to anything outside its own sphere. Leave it alone and you will find it is a great country and one that would love to be in positive interaction with the rest of the world.

    The truth is that every account of human history, from the Greco-Persian wars in ancient times, to the rise of scriptural based religions, to more modern debates about WWII, the Cold War, and such, suffers from the intrusion of propaganda and polemics. These propaganda narratives might, in the short run, help some people feel better about "their role" in human history, but that feeling will die. What will remain is the true legacy of the lies and propaganda and how, at each turn, they have helped retard the natural progressive forces in the evolutionary story of man-kind.
     
    Adfundum likes this.
  5. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,856
    Likes Received:
    3,831
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You have no clue, the Saudis sponsor a variety of Sunni groups of varying degrees, the Saudi government would not sponsor AQ which espouses their destruction? The people of Syria deserve freedom and democracy and will never have that with the Assad dictatorship supported by Iran and their terrorist proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.

    AQ and ISIS are extremely bad and evil, now you admit the Iranian government, Hamas and Hezbollah are the same? You want to draw false equivalency between Iran and Saudi so you don't have to make the tough choices, get real.
     
  6. Pisa

    Pisa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    4,157
    Likes Received:
    1,889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Your sources are - to put it mildly - mostly ignorant of the realities of the Middle East. Things here are never black or white. Alliances form, shift, and turn on former friends faster than your American Conservative, or whatever Paul is trendy now in the conspiracy world, are able to fill the gaps in knowledge with fantasies about bad America going after innocent Assad.

    I'll give you some examples.

    Your sources whine about US' alleged part in the creation of ISIS, while keeping eerily quiet about Syria's role in the creation of ISIS' loving parent - al Qaeda in Iraq. During the second Gulf war, Syria allowed foreign fighters to cross the border into Iraq to join al Qaeda. The terror organization had at the time close and on-and-off-friendly relationships with Iran as well, receiving support from the Iranian government (yes, I have sources, I'll post all the links at the end of the post for clarity). Hamza bin Laden, son of, got married in Iran. Al Qaeda in Iraq was mostly made in Iran.

    Ironically enough, al Qaeda is now fighting Iranian proxies in Yemen. As I said, alliances here are not what a Westerner would expect.

    One of your sources (the American Conservative you mentioned in another post) claims that the US had to conform to the wishes of its Sunni allies. Nothing can be further from the truth. There were significant differences of opinion between US and Saudi Arabia, for instance, before and during the civil war in Syria. While the US wanted Assad gone even before the conflict escalated, the Saudis were keen on keeping Assad's behind on the presidential chair in order to avoid exactly the chaos that ensued. Far from being at the forefront of an anti-Assad alliance, the Saudis gave Assad 275 million rials in the hope that he will enact reforms and prevent civil war. Saudis dreaded regional instability - and rightly so. Of course they turned against Assad when he failed to deliver as promised.

    The main sponsor of ISIS during the civil war was Qatar, an ally of Iran, by the way.

    Links:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/11/al-qaeda-iran-cia/545576/
    https://mepc.org/journal/saudi-arabias-motives-syrian-civil-war
    https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/fact-check-is-qatar-supporting-terrorism-1.5484124
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40246734
     
  7. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An Israeli trying to link Iran to the groups that are Iran's enemies. What else is new!

    Iran supports Hezbollah and, Hamas -- although the latter has a more complicated relationship with Iran. ISIS was, in fact, the product of US, Saudi and Israeli policies, even if it became a monster that might not have been exactly what was intended by those policies. Still, the US and its allies (including but not limited to Qatar, which is not an Iranian ally but an ally of Turkey which, like Turkey itself, follows a different approach and set of alliances than the ones by the Saudis in what is an inner Sunni dispute on who is to lead the Sunni groups in the Muslim world), did implicitly and sometimes explicitly supported ISIS.

    As for Al Queda, including AQ in Iraq, it was the product of Saudi policies aimed at undermining the Shia governments being elected in Iraq. The surge or "Redirection" saw the US cooperate with many of those elements (which then formed the nucleus of ISIS in Iraq, using the infrastructure and apparatus of the "Sons of Iraq" along with Saudi funding) minus its top leadership, but whether the US truly intended for a group like ISIS to emerge is debatable.

    In this mix, the one government in the world that openly stated on several occasions that it even preferred the ISIS monsters to Iran/Hezbollah or Assad's forces near its border, was Israel, which provided some assistance to some of the jihadist groups fighting Assad as well.

    All that said, while Iran was on the opposite side of all these Sunni groups I have mentioned, including the Taleban in Afghanistan, the past couple of years and, in particular, since the 'maximum pressure' campaign against Iran, there have been attempts by Iran to establish some links with some elements within the Taleban. The assassination of General Soleimani has made Iran even more interested and there are now (more or less) credible reports of Iran funding some Taleban forces with the aim of causing casualties to the US troops in Afghanistan.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2020
  8. Gilos

    Gilos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2011
    Messages:
    14,150
    Likes Received:
    724
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If there was such a risk, Iran would also prefer to have an ISIS led Iraq over an Israeli led Iraq, there is simply no such option.
     
  9. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The time for editing my last post is over, but the portion where I wrote "As for Al Queda, including Al Queda in Iraq", should have read instead, "As for Al Queda, specifically Al Queda in Iraq..."
     
  10. Pisa

    Pisa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    4,157
    Likes Received:
    1,889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    An Iranian trying to link Israel to the groups that are Israel's enemies. What else isn't new!

    See, it works both ways.

    The truth is that such ungodly alliances are part and parcel of life in the Middle East. Allies today, enemies tomorrow, best buddies next summer. Our small world is deeply divided.

    You didn't click on the links. The article in the Atlantic presents Iran in a rather favorable light regarding its collaboration with al Qaeda. Try it.
     
  11. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think I have read pretty much all angles which exist on these issues. What I have said is my view of the most accurate summary of the issue. If I was interested in pushing propaganda, I would tell a simpler story on all these points, starting with the 1953 coup to the present. But I have tried to give the account which I consider accurate, after following these issues closely and being exposed to the different narratives from all sides.
     
  12. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,683
    Likes Received:
    4,171
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well stated. My comments were not intended to focus on 1953. I believe 1953 was an outgrowth of the thing you mention in your post about leaving Iran alone. As I said before, this is something that goes back over one hundred years with the end of the Ottoman Empire and rise of the oil industry. So, when you say we should stop meddling in Iran's affairs, I think that's the issue that goes back to 1917. My feeling is that we have to let go of the mentality that the West has some claim to the resources and regional control over the sale of those resources. Politically and economically, we're trying hard to make sure no one else has control.
     
  13. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree, but two points just to be clear. First, Iran was not part of the Ottoman empire and, in fact, was a rival power to the Ottomans. Second, western intervention in the affairs of the region has a long history, even if it reached its zenith and height after WWI and the carving up of the Ottoman empire according to a colonial script. And, of course, the discovery of oil in the Middle East (in Iran before anywhere else, in 1906 actually) made what had always been a colonial or imperialist streak within the West now infused with geopolitical and economic issues about oil.
     
  14. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Iran did not kill hundreds US soldiers - nor was Iran directly responsible for the death of those soldiers -

    A number of posts ago you claimed that the US providing arms to Al Qaeda in Syria amounted to limited responsibility. Now you are changing your tune. Regardless of which position you take - you are still SOL - as the US armed way more terrorists than Iran.

    Further - you have now moved the goal posts. Your claim was that the Embassy hostage taking was worse than anything the US has done.

    Wrong on all counts.
     
  15. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Iran is a neighboring country of Iraq. So obviously there responsibility is much greater than the U.S. providing arms to someone thousands of miles away. Because proximity naturally provides opportunity for far more direct oversight.

    And seizing the embassy was an act of war. Nothing the U.S. has done regarding Iran was an act of war.

    In my book, an "act of war" is a pretty big deal. Obviously not to you though.
     
  16. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Projection - as evidenced by the rest of your post.

    What part of - Saudi Arabia supported Al Qaeda - and other groups of the same ilk in Syria - did you not understand. It is not like it is some secret. Since I have posted this to you previously - you are now in mindless denial of reality.

    Biden: the Saudis, the Emiratis, etc. What were they doing? They were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad except that the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world[/QUOTE]https://mideastshuffle.com/2014/10/04/biden-turks-saudis-uae-funded-and-armed-al-nusra-and-al-qaeda/

    How is turning Syria into a strict sharia nightmare - which is what happened - giving the people of Syria "freedom and democracy"

    You are dazed, confused, and saying things that make no sense.

    I have never stated that Hamas/Hezbollah are the same or as bad as AQ/ISIS.

    I do agree that AQ and ISIS are extremely bad and evil. The US, Saudi Arabia and numerous other nations armed, supplied and supported a proxy army led by Al Qaeda/ISIS ... and so far you have done nothing but support this action.
     
  17. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What sources do you refer to ? It is you who has no clue what you are talking about.

    1) Qatar is a gulf state - although relations with El Saud have been strained of late - and yes they were one of the nations who supported Al Qaeda and ISIS - but they were one of many sponsors. This was a massive global effort with involvement of more than 10 nations.

    If you want to talk laughable links "Haaretz and BBC" would fit that criteria - as both nations were part of the coalition to arm the Jihadist proxy army in Syria.

    Saudi Arabia - Qatar and other gulf nations - Turkey, Israel, Jordan, US, Britain and other European Nations along with Easter European Nations such as Croatia, Serbia Bulgaria .. were all involved in arming the Islamist Jihadist proxy army. (and lets not forget Libya - Benghazi)

    They moved the stuff left over from the war in Yugoslavia over to Syria - It was not Qatar who did this - it was the CIA.

    You have no clue what you are talking about.

    2) It was Iran and Soleimani that spent most of the last decade fighting ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria - again your commentary is refuted by reality.

    3) The gulf war has zero to do with the issue. You are off in la la land - because you have no understanding of the situation in Syria

    4) Just because numerous Fake news outlets try to spin the story by calling the conflict in Syria a "Civil war" - the conflict was not a Civil war - it was an armed insurgency. The freedom loving people of Syria were fighting for Assad. I am sure there were a few Islamist nut job civilians that supported the rebels - and folks like you due to drinking too much propaganda koolaid.
     
  18. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Arming an insurgency in a foreign nation is an act of war. Being allied with an army who is attacking Iran is an act of war.

    You are grasping at non existent straws. What the US did was far worse than anything Iran has ever done.

    Then you make this dumb proximity argument - 1) which makes no difference and 2) we have military advisers and troops in close proximity - so it an argument with a false premise.
     
  19. truth and justice

    truth and justice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    25,732
    Likes Received:
    8,775
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL. The only thing you have is to highlight a missing 'n'. You are so sad.

    And still no list from you..............

    Oh, and LOL. You wrote in the very next post "He didn't, no one had any doubts as to the evil of Saddam, just that an Iranian victory was the infinitely worse of 2 evils". Try and learn some English grammar - have you not learnt how to use commas and full stops? How embarrassing for you.....
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2020
  20. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,856
    Likes Received:
    3,831
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. Yes I have

    2. Where did I go wrong exactly?
     
  21. truth and justice

    truth and justice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    25,732
    Likes Received:
    8,775
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And still no list
    "He didn't, no one had any doubts as to the evil of Saddam, just that an Iranian victory was the infinitely worse of 2 evils"

    "He didn't. No one had any doubts as to the evil of Saddam just that an Iranian victory was the infinitely worse of 2 evils" NOTICE the full stop instead of a comma and removal of a comma?
     
  22. Pisa

    Pisa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    4,157
    Likes Received:
    1,889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    1. The ideology of al Qaeda and ISIS owes much to Muslim Brotherhood's Sayyid Qutb (Egyptian, not Saudi), an extremist even by the Brotherhood's standards, whose writings are a fierce indictment of Western societies and call to kill infidels. Qatar supports the Muslim Brotherhood, deemed a terrorist organization by many Arab states. This is the main issue perturbing the relationships between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The Saudis consider the Muslim Brotherhood a serious threat (remember Khashoggi? he was Muslim Brotherhood, and once enjoyed excellent relations with bin Laden, also a member of the Muslim Brotherhood). The other Middle Eastern country supporting the Muslim Brotherhood is Turkey. The latest spat between Qatar and Saudi Arabia was about Qatari support for the anti-Assad Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.

    Saudi Arabia's initial support for ISIS vanished quickly after the organization carried out terror attacks in the kingdom.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudis-confirm-isis-behind-suicide-attack-at-shiite-mosque-1432418501
    https://www.saudiembassy.net/news/s...telligence-center-zulfi-arrests-13-terrorists
    https://aawsat.com/english/home/article/1931046/saudi-arabia-45-‘isis’-members-face-trial

    ISIS was supported mainly by Turkey and Qatar. The allegations about CIA and others are just hearsay, repeated ad nauseam in different opinion pieces, without proof.

    Both Israel and UK have an independent press, free to criticize the actions of the government and write about whatever floats their boat. The article in Ha'aretz was written in cooperation with the Associated Press. The BBC article wasn't written by a journalist, but of course you didn't notice it, being too busy to search for pretexts to reject my sources. It was written by the director of the Centre for Financial Crime & Security Studies at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi).

    2. So what? As I already mentioned, alliances in the Middle East don't last long. Iran used al Qaeda against Americans in Iraq, now it fights against ISIS to appear as liberators of Iraqi Shiites and even moderate Sunni Muslims. ISIS offered Iran a wonderful opportunity to embed it's own people and ideology in the Iraqi society. Iran now has a proxy army in Iraq too.

    3. The Gulf war led to the creation of al Qaeda in Iraq, which became ISIS. so it has everything to do with the situation in Syria.

    4. Civil war, a violent conflict between a state and one or more organized non-state actors in the state’s territory.
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/civil-war

    How wasn't the "armed insurgency" in Syria a civil war?

    Yep, the freedom loving people of Syria were fighting for the perpetuation ad infinitum of the wonderfully free martial law reigning* in Syria from 1963. Oh joy.


    * freely :D
     
  23. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You get some stuff kind of right, but then - "Holy Propaganda" Batman.

    Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, the extremists in Pakistan and India - and all the ex Russian Stans - and numerous other groups around the world we havn't heard of because they have not killed anyone yet - ALL share the same Saudi Inspired Wahaabi/Salafi ideology. and yes - the MB is part of the same club - preaching the same Islamist message - while pretending to be moderate.

    It is well known - and complained about often- (more often than in the past few years) that El Saud had been exporting this extremist ideology around the globe for decades .. sometimes arming and/or supporting these groups.

    So spare me the kindergarten explanation of what is going on here - as if we havn't had this conversation previously ?!

    AQ and MB have connections - but in general you are off with respect to ideological context- All these groups are one in purpose - even when they fight among themselves - which happens often.

    If one does not understand this distinction - one does not understand the Syrian conflict.. and your next comment shows that you don't.

    Saudi Arabia's initial support for ISIS vanished quickly after the organization carried out terror attacks in the kingdom.

    You post an article from May 2015 - I need not know more than that - because by that time the war had been waging for over 4 years. Saudi booked it - and good thing to because the writing was on the wall. The experiment had gone bad.

    right after armed conflict started in late 2011 - if not before (history will tell) - US and others led a global effort to arm, supply and support a an extremist Islamist insurgency in Syria. Two of the main groups at this point were Al Qaeda/Al Nusra and the Islamic Front - same club - different name - same mission .. same goal.

    The goal was to turn Syria into an Islamic State - get rid of the cancer of "Secularism" in the ME.
    The call for Holy Jihad went out - tens of thousands of foreign fighters came - all with the dream of a new caliphate - a proper Islamic State.

    The modern incarnation of ISIS did not exist at this point. With the support of major Nation States - who were pouring tens of thousands of tons of sophisticated military equipment to the Holy Jihad - within less than 2 years took over most of the cities / territory in Syria.

    The cities have been turned into a nightmarish hell - strict sharia - dark age style - atrocities, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes are going on - and being posted on the internet.

    In late 2013 - various of these groups coalesce - along with the foreign fighters - into an Islamic State - and a new Caliphate is declared.

    The money - support and arms are flowing - Turkey is helping to move the oil - this new caliphate is being referred to as having an economy - they run state affairs - set up courts (dark age style) and police. Extremist Islamist ideology gone wild. They are so extreme that Al Qaeda/Al Nusra and others distance themselves from the modern incarnation of ISIS - just as had happened with the ISIS in Iraq (Al Qaeda in Iraq).

    In 2014 the new Caliphate is expanded into Iraq. Why the hell they thought they could get away with this I don't know.. very curious move in many ways - but they do manage to get a whole lot of weapons out of the deal ... and the war is going well - Assad is on the ropes

    But now the US is in the awkward position of being allied with ISIS in Syria but fighting them in Iraq.

    Around this time Rand Paul goes on CNN's Sunday morning show "State of the Union" - and describes the above situation.
    http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2...-my-son-into-that-mess-on-the-crisis-in-iraq/

    That takes us to July 2014. The lid is coming off the pot at this point - the atrocities are horrific - Congressmen going on TV stating directly that we are arming and allied with Al Qaeda and ISIS.

    Yeah - Obama was trying desperately to provide cover for something that was previously a "covert" operation - but was now stated policy.
    It was around this time that the "Moderate Rebel Lie" - propaganda war was waged - including a "Hero" - the White Helmets.

    A year later - Which is the time period you are talking about - it was clear that Russia was going to support the Assad Regime - Militarily - which was officially announced in Sept 2015.

    The writing was already on the wall - time to distance itself from the Caliphate - the dog that went off the leash - when it went into Iraq and in other ways - just like they did with Al Qaeda when it was misbehaving... "Driving planes into the twin towers " what were you thinking ??

    Let me know when you can distinguish between a "civil war" - and an armed insurgency - and why we use one term to describe one - and the other term to describe the other. The two are closely connected so the distinction is harder to detect - but I am sure you are capable.
     
  24. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, as they are ultimately the real, grass routes inspired, rival to Iran in the region. As they are also the grass routes rivals to 'secular' westernized ideologies, to 'Zionist ideology' or any other ideology they consider alien or foreign to their region. Including, the Saudi, Wahhabi, inspired ideologies which are the inspiration and cover for the the main jihadist groups which became infamous with labels such as Al Queda and ISIS et al.

    In this regard, those who support Israel have a vested interest in propaganda against the Muslim Brotherhood, which espouses a populist, more 'democratic', vision of Islam among the various Sunni movements and which is backed basically by Turkey's ruling party (which itself is an offshoot of it) and their ally, Qatar, and which was the primary base of support for the government of Morsi before he was overthrown by the military coup. Unlike the ISIS and Al Queda "jihadists", whose focus, ideology, and actions has never targeted Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood is also (as a populist movement) very much focused on Israel and the Palestinian struggle (which has occupied popular imaginations in the region for a long time). So, obviously, Israeli and pro Israeli propaganda groups will indeed like to link the Muslim Brotherhood to Al Queda and ISIS. But whatever your views on the Muslim Brotherhood (which was on the opposite side of Iran in Syria), linking them to an opposite and very different rival tradition in Sunni Islam is obnoxious to say the least.

    To perhaps slightly over simplify the issue:

    ISIS, Al Queda, Wahhabis == the flag of ARABIA (those who want to put the Arabian peninsula and its culture and practices as the 'center' of the Islamic world)

    Muslim Brotherhood == the flag of the Eastern Mediterranean Middle East (the flag representing the fusion of ancient Egyptian and Semitic civilizations, the Greco-Roman, and Perso-Iranian influences, with those of caliphates and sultanates which became part of the Turko-Persian tradition in Sunni Islam), looking to put its center and capital in the eastern Mediterranean world

    (post Safavid) Shia Islam == the flag of IRAN and the Persian-Mesopotamian tradition within the larger Middle Eastern world, looking to put the center of power and the capital of the region closer to the ancient capitals of the Persian empire or the capitals which were constructed before or after them within the Iranian plateau and the Mesopotamian heartland (e.g. Baghdad)

    All these groups are rivals (and have rivals within them) and all have some connections to one another, some more than others. But, despite MB and the AQ both being "Sunni", what distinguishes them from one another culturally may be even greater than what distinguishes MB from traditional, conservative, Shia Muslim practices in Iran and Iraq.

    Politically and geopolitically, however, a division within Islam that at its inception in its early years, was partly about keeping the center of power in Arabia (Shia Islam), was subsequently turned on its head! And became the flag of those who stood for its complete opposite. (It is a long story...). But at this time at least, all the grass routes groups (MB or Shia Iran) recognize that they have a common enemy in the US backed imperialist camp, and its principal allies sitting in Israel and Arabia -- the camp that can't rely on popular support or movements, but props up regimes and groups which rely on force and violence since their popular appeal is lacking.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2020
  25. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the meantime, while our Israeli poster here is complaining about "Qatar" funding the Muslim Brotherhood, within Israel the debate is how Netanyahu was begging Qatar not to cut off funding for Hamas (which supports MB and is why its relationship with Iran deteriorated during the height of the Syrian civil war). Which goes further to show the "byzantine' nature of politics in the Middle East!

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/mossa...d-qatar-begged-it-to-pay-hamas-liberman-says/
    Liberman: Netanyahu sent Mossad head, general to Qatar, ‘begged’ it to pay Hamas
    Yisrael Beytenu party leader says the pair were sent by PM two weeks ago to convince Doha not to end its money transfers to the Gaza-based terror group

    Israel, of course, has often played "divide and conquer" and is now doing this again. In the distant past, Israel supported Hamas against the PLO. Then it supported the PLO against Hamas. Now it supports Hamas against another group, Islamic Jihad. Unlike those groups in the region which rely on grass routes movements for their support, and need to build unity, the Israelis basically specialize in creating disunity, chaos, and divide and rule.
     

Share This Page