Officials warn ISIS still has money and fighters, and is gaining strength in Iraq and Syria

America's role in the rise of ISIS predates Obama. The whole project began with the effort known as the "surge" during the Bush administration, when the Americans began to focus on creating alliances with Sunni groups (including Jihadists) in Iraq. This was sold as an effort to fight Al Queda in Iraq, but while the American were indeed lessening the threat from AQ by becoming allied with them, the real focus was to create a sunni counter-force against the Shia forces in Iraq. The Americans even created a huge army, known as the "Sons of Iraq", composed of ex-Baathists and these jihadist types, and armed and supplied them generously. The situation got to the point where America's own hand-picked prime minister in Iraq, Maleki who was forced on Iraq to replace Jaffari because the latter was seen as being too close to Iran, felt threatened with the rise of these Sunni forces and basically switched sides. He moved Iraq closer to Iran again. In this mix, he also had the "Sons of Iraq" disbanded. Many of these same folks then found new jobs as part of a new force called ISIS, with people of kindred spirit in the meantime being supported in Syria by the assortment of countries trying to unseat Assad, giving this force even more territory and reach. These latter policies to unseat Assad started slowly under Bush, but were pursued vigorously during the Obama administration, with Hilllary Clinton the main spokesperson for these efforts. (Obama himself was basically appeasing the interest groups pushing him in this direction, as he himself wasn't a true comrade in arms of these people).

While the US never owed up to its role in the rise of ISIS, the Israelis were never shy in explicitly saying they preferred ISIS to Iran on their border. I mention that to put things into greater perspective.

Anyway, while I am not sure the US wants ISIS per se to rise again in Iraq, the Americans and the Israelis are indeed working hard to create the same problems for Iraq as they had done previously. The entire issue for the Americans is to make sure Iraq keeps a huge distance from Iran. The rest is just tactics which can change from time to time.

 

Same thing. Those who did not want to win (politicians) didn't allow the military to win.

 

Disingenuous?

I don't think you are in a position to accuse anyone else of being disingenuous after pushing Breitbart BS as facts. No, US did not deliver arms to Al Qaeda. We armed the anti-government rebels, and although some of those weapons ended up in wrong hands it is disingenuous to make it sound like US directly delivered arms to people known to be Al Qaeda.

Your personal remarks are tiresome and childish. Insulting others is not making you look any smarter, it only makes it look like you suffer from an inferiority complex.

 

There was also the anti war movement leadership (SDS) who weren't really against the war but against the U.S. and the Saigon government winning the war.

The anti war and anti draft protestors were just useful idiots of the Kremlin.

After the Cold War the Kremlin revealed that the USSR spent more money on financing the anti war movement in America and Europe than they spent on arming and supplying the South Vietnamese PLF (VC)

The Vietnam War could have been won and brought to an end three times...
1965 if LBJ hadn't micromanged the air war over North Vietnam.
1968 if Walter Cronkite hadn't lied to the American people about the Tet Offensive.
1969 if Nixon would have done in 69 what he did in 72/73.

I arrived in-country in June of 69 just before Nixon announced the Vietnamization of the war and started the military drawdown.

When I arrived in Vietnam the battleship USS New Jersey was suppose to have been on the gun line but it wasn't. North Vietnam demanded that the USS New Jersey not to be with in the Western Pacific to continue the fake peace talks.

In late 69 the 3rd Mar Div left Vietnam and returned to Okinawa.

Then the 26th Marines, 1/13 and other elements of the 5th Mar Div were ordered to return to Camp Pendleton and prepare for being deactivated.

This is when I heard Marines and soldiers saying "We aren't going to be allowed to win this war."

 

Maybe so, but they had a point. They were being forced to fight a war where US had practically nothing to win, and even the politicians could not give good reasons to be there. By 1967 the biggest reason to continue was the fear of losing.

They were right, and I'll bet many before them said the same. US could have invaded the North, including Hanoi, in 1966 and put an end to it, but they didn't want to do it out of fear of drawing USSR and China deeper into it.

 

We should have never gotten involved with the Republic of South Vietnam

On January 20, 1961 President Eisenhower warned incoming President JFK not to get involved with the Diem regime, it was to corrupt.

Eisenhower told JFK if you want to stop communist expansion in Southeast Asia it has to be done in Laos not at the 17th parallel.

Control Laos and North Vietnam has no access to what would become the Ho Chi minh trail.

The CIA was already fighting the secret war in Laos.

JFK ignored Eisenhower's warnings and advice and cut off most funding for the CIA secret war in Laos and instead decided making a stand at the DMZ on the 17rh parallel leaving South Vietnam's entire western flank open to the NVA.

A few years later in 1963 JFK decided on regime change in the RVN, removing President Diem from power.
JFK signed off on the CIA backed military coups that backfired resulting in President Diem's murder.

From that day on, South Vietnam became America's problem and we owned the RVN.
A few weeks later in Dallas Texas JFK met the same fate as President Diem.

 

Yep.

 

The fact that you have no clue what you are talking about is not an insult - its a statement of fact. If you don't like what you see in the mirror - get some knowledge about the topics which you speak on and quit pretending to know stuff that you don't.

I did not say anything about Breitbart .. and doubt that they even covered the issue. The MSM in general - neither right nor left - gave lip service to this issue.

Your latest diatribe speaks to your lack of knowledge on this issue

1) Al Qaeda - and other groups of the same ilk "were the anti government rebels". - and this was no secret.

"A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.

Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

This is directly from the Declassified Defense Intelligence Agency document

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...12-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

"Which is pretty well exactly what happened two years later. The report isn’t a policy document. It’s heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria".

It is not like we needed these DIA documents to know that the anti Assad forces were the major forces driving the insurgency. The NY-Times and a host of other news agencies reported this early on in the war.

Obama's "moderate rebel lie" was just that - a big fat lie/ false narrative.

So what is your deal here .. do you seriously think the DIA - and all these news agencies were involved in some grand conspiracy to frame Obama back in 2012/2013 ?

The problem with this conspiracy theory is that Obama had not yet come up with the Moderate Rebel lie. That only started after ISIS - which formed in late 2013 - went into Iraq in 2014. After which the NY-Times forgot its previous reporting.

The aforementioned however are not the only ones involved in what you think is some grand conspiracy ... Here are the words of Biden - yeah .. that guy VP -Biden.

https://mideastshuffle.com/2014/10/04/biden-turks-saudis-uae-funded-and-armed-al-nusra-and-al-qaeda/


So if there was no moderate middle - who were these "moderates" the Obama Administration was arming and supporting ?

That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance” boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scale”. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.

AKA - Benghazi.

But never mind the Defense Intelligence Agency - The NY-Times and a gazillion other news outlets - or Vice President Biden.

The fact that we were arming Al Qaeda - ISIS and other group of the same ilk in Syria became so well known that a bill was put before congress to stop this "Stop Arming Terrorist Act" ... this bill was cosponsored by these 13 brave Anti Establishment souls in Congress.

Rep. Peter Welch [D-VT-At Large] Yes January 23, 2017
Rep. Thomas Massie[R-KY-4] Yes January 23, 2017
Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA-13] Yes January 23, 2017
Rep. Walter Jones Jr.[R-NC-3] Yes January 23, 2017
Rep. Thomas Garrett Jr. [R-VA-5] Yes January 23, 2017
Rep. Ted Yoho [R-FL-3] Yes January 23, 2017
Rep. Paul Gosar [R-AZ-4] No February 7, 2017
Rep. Scott Perry [R-PA-4] No February 28, 2017
Rep. John Conyers Jr. [D-MI-13] No March 6, 2017
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA-48] No March 29, 2017
Rep. Ro Khanna [D-CA-17] No April 26, 2017
Rep. Bobby Rush [D-IL-1] No April 27, 2017
Rep. Jeff Duncan [R-SC-3] No May 22, 2017
Rep. Peter DeFazio[D-OR-4] No June 22, 2017

This above list does not include Tulsi Gabbard, Rand Paul and Senator Black ..all of who have stated directly that we were arming terrorists.

Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups. If an American citizen gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, he or she would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government. The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. This support has allowed al-Qaeda and their fellow terrorist organizations to establish strongholds throughout Syria, including in Aleppo. https://gabbard.house.gov/news/StopArmingTerrorists

The above is the rational for the "Stop Arming Terrorist Act". Your claim Gabbard, Paul, and the above cosponsors to this bill are just making this stuff up is preposterous nonsense and abject denial.

 

I am talking about your behavior. Its childish, and you'd look much better if you learned some respect.

 

Projecting again. I am not the one that has been denying obvious reality in a disingenuous and disingenuously feigning ignorance. This is not the first time we have discussed this topic - and the fact that Obama was supporting and arming Al Qaeda and other nasty Islamist extremist groups in Syria has been proven repeatedly - yet you slither around trying to pretend that these facts do not exist in a desperate attempt to apologize for atrocity.

 

Is there an 'ignore' option here?