Teague wrote:Or maybe pull the fuck out of the middle east and let the ME countries lead instead of the west which are hated? Sanders plans on making SA take the lead with support from the west but not there leading the fight. What does everyone think of that as an idea?

duvduv wrote:The first thing the UK and US can do is get their noses out of the business of the countries they are incessantly based in. Look how successful China is without worldwide bases! Even Russia doesn't have bases all over the world! But the Anglo-American Empire wants to rule the world and boss everyone around and be the world's policeman. Enough is enough! Stop pushing everyone around and promoting conflicts with military bases, invasions and the expectation of creating democracy through the barrel of a gun!

If the DO pull out, who are they going to pick as the next Bogeyman to scare the American people into giving up their rights and liberties for false security to keep the military industrial complex making LOTS of money??!!

duvduv wrote:

Teague wrote:Or maybe pull the fuck out of the middle east and let the ME countries lead instead of the west which are hated? Sanders plans on making SA take the lead with support from the west but not there leading the fight. What does everyone think of that as an idea?

If the DO pull out, who are they going to pick as the next Bogeyman to scare the American people into giving up their rights and liberties for false security to keep the military industrial complex making LOTS of money??!!

”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

Teague wrote:Or maybe pull the fuck out of the middle east and let the ME countries lead instead of the west which are hated? Sanders plans on making SA take the lead with support from the west but not there leading the fight. What does everyone think of that as an idea?

Sanders wants Saudi Arabia to take the lead? That sounds like a horrible idea.

edit: I realize now you mean military taking the lead...I thought at first you meant politically leading the Middle East.

If Saudi Arabia wants to take responsibility for the fight against ISIS I think that is fine, but there would be problems wth Assad and Iran if they send in ground troops. And I doubt Saudi Arabia is very motivated to fight ISIS, they are both Sunni fundamentalists and ISIS is the main enemy of Iran, which suits the Saudis. I think the bets choice for defeating IS in Iraq and Syria is a wide coalition of different forces, each with their own zones to police. Turkey and Kurdish forces (the YPG and Peshmerga) will also be involved. And Assad's military with its Iranian and Hezbollah support will also stake their claims, wether Assad will still be in charge or not. Also Iraq has to get its shit together and build a political and military consensus of sunni and shia interests.

duvduv wrote:

Teague wrote:Or maybe pull the fuck out of the middle east and let the ME countries lead instead of the west which are hated? Sanders plans on making SA take the lead with support from the west but not there leading the fight. What does everyone think of that as an idea?

If the DO pull out, who are they going to pick as the next Bogeyman to scare the American people into giving up their rights and liberties for false security to keep the military industrial complex making LOTS of money??!!

”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

duvduv wrote:Because All Qaida was a manufactured threat. That's why Zawahiri has disappeared. A new bogeyman has replaced him.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

duvduv wrote:Because All Qaida was a manufactured threat. That's why Zawahiri has disappeared. A new bogeyman has replaced him.

Who manufactured Al Qaeda? Who manufactured ISIS?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

duvduv wrote:Because All Qaida was a manufactured threat. That's why Zawahiri has disappeared. A new bogeyman has replaced him.

Who manufactured Al Qaeda? Who manufactured ISIS?

Exactly!

Who wants to keep conflicts going and sell arms?

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

duvduv wrote:Because All Qaida was a manufactured threat. That's why Zawahiri has disappeared. A new bogeyman has replaced him.

Who manufactured Al Qaeda? Who manufactured ISIS?

Exactly!

Who wants to keep conflicts going and sell arms?

Weapons companies? Interesting. How did they manage to coordinate all those people to fake a Islamic jihad against the west?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

Who manufactured Al Qaeda? Who manufactured ISIS?

Exactly!

Who wants to keep conflicts going and sell arms?

Weapons companies? Interesting. How did they manage to coordinate all those people to fake a Islamic jihad against the west?

Who owns those companies and the American government?

Who manufactured Al Qaeda? Who manufactured ISIS?

Scot Dutchy wrote:Who is saying that?
You said:

Who manufactured Al Qaeda? Who manufactured ISIS?

Who do you think did?

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Who is saying that?
You said:

Who manufactured Al Qaeda? Who manufactured ISIS?

Who do you think did?

I was thinking it was Wahhabist extremists, but I was hoping you could tell me.

Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen prior to and during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, from 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favoured by neighbouring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention[citation needed]. Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken; funding began with $20–$30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987. Funding continued after 1989 as the mujahideen battled the forces of Mohammad Najibullah's PDPA during the civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992).

The U.S. government has been criticized for allowing Pakistan to channel a disproportionate amount of its funding to controversial Afghan resistance leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar,[33] who Pakistani officials believed was "their man".[34] Hekmatyar has been criticized for killing other mujahideen and attacking civilian populations, including shelling Kabul with American-supplied weapons, causing 2,000 casualties. Hekmatyar was said to be friendly with Osama bin Laden, founder of al-Qaeda, who was running an operation for assisting "Afghan Arab" volunteers fighting in Afghanistan, called Maktab al-Khadamat.

In the late 1980s, Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, concerned about the growing strength of the Islamist movement, told President George H. W. Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein."

While there is no evidence that the CIA had direct contact with Osama Bin Laden and US funding was directed to Afghan Mujahedin groups, critics of U.S. foreign policy consider Operation Cyclone to be substantially responsible for setting in motion the events that led to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, a view Brzezinski has dismissed. William Hartung argues that the early foundations of al-Qaida were built in part on relationships and weaponry that came from the billions of dollars in U.S. support for the Afghan mujahadin during the war to expel Soviet forces from that country. According to Christopher Andrew and Vasily Mitrokhin, there is "no support" in any "reliable source" for "the claim that the CIA funded bin Laden or any of the other Arab volunteers who came to support the mujahideen." Peter Bergen writes that "[t]he real problem is not that the CIA helped bin Laden during the 1980s, but that the Agency simply had no idea of his possible significance until the bin Laden unit was set up within the CIA in January 1996."

The United States provided financial aid and weapons to the mujahideen through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). ISI are believed to have access to bin Laden in the past. Bin Laden met and built relations with Hamid Gul, who was a Lieutenant General in the Pakistani army and head of the ISI agency.

On Monday, May 18, the conservative government watchdog group Judicial Watch published a selection of formerly classified documents obtained from the U.S. Department of Defense and State Department through a federal lawsuit.

While initial mainstream media reporting is focused on the White House’s handling of the Benghazi consulate attack, a much “bigger picture” admission and confirmation is contained in one of the Defense Intelligence Agency documents circulated in 2012: that an ‘Islamic State’ is desired in Eastern Syria to effect the West’s policies in the region.

Astoundingly, the newly declassified report states that for “THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME…”.

The DIA report, formerly classified “SECRET//NOFORN” and dated August 12, 2012, was circulated widely among various government agencies, including CENTCOM, the CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA, State Dept., and many others.

The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.
...