If the United States wants a stable and unified middle east why do they

keep, admittingly, starting revolutions and overthrowing stable

governments. I just don't see how someone can say the United States

wants a stable middle east when they over throw a functioning government

and kill half a million of it's civilians. This has happened on far

more than one occasion. The funding of Iraq's invasion of Iran, choking

aid when Iraq made progress and increasing the flow when they began to

lose ground. The borders around Israel Osciliated all throughout the

50s-70s. The overthrow of Ghadaffi by extremists was done by the United

States. Countless revolutions during the arab springs were done by the

CIA. They admitted to organizing the protests. The United States support

a very weak group in Syria, a group that makes up a very small

percentage of Syria. The United States loves it when their is trouble

because everyone comes running to them. As soon as their is a sign of

stability we overthrow someone and create a power vaccuum.

Stable or not stable, it's about control. Iraq was just over pretty much nothing other than Bush trying to fill daddys shoes. Afghanistan was retaliation for 9/11, aiding Iraq against Iran is just because Shia are a minority and less profitable to exploit. It makes no sense to hold such a stance. It's just overall competition between much larger powers for influence over resources.

You have to understand that instability is not the goal. Division however is. The world chopped up the Ottoman Empire after WWI and divided it amongst foreign powers to fuel our own industrialization. We created fake lines in the sand and instilled false senses of nationalism. The goal was not instability. It was to permanently erase the Caliphate from history or future and exploit the entire region to fuel industrialization. 

The Islamic State is very aware of that, which is exactly why they are doing what they are doing.

 

Countless revolutions during the arab springs were done by the CIA.

Citation needed.

 

 

The United States support a very weak group in Syria, a group that makes up a very small percentage of Syria.

We support the FSA solely because they are the only group who aren't necessarily Sunni extremists who want Assad removed. That being said, FSA is a garbage ally of Al Nusra with no political goals. They are simply Sunni defectors who hate Alawites.

 

They will give just enough for to prevent ISIS from advancing, but

nothing more. The Kurds are an ethnic group that have been around for a

long time, but were funded and organized by the Soviet's in response too

Iran aligning with the United States. This period is when they grew in

to what they are now. After Iran took their country back from the United

States, the Soviets promptly abandoned the Kurds breaking way to the

modern day conflicts between the kurds and Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

The Kurds are not even a single united faction. The US relations with the Kurds are pretty damn good in modern times. I mean, we are the ones who created the autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan. According to our own government, there is nothing to suggest they will not support an independent Kurdistan, but quite the opposite.

The modern day conflicts between the Kurds and their neighbors, specifically Iran is a conflict that predates the United States. They have been trying to get an independent Kurdistan for hundreds of years. The Soviets by no means "created" the Kurds.

                   

Stable or not stable, it's about control. Iraq was just over pretty much nothing other than Bush trying to fill daddys shoes. Afghanistan was retaliation for 9/11, aiding Iraq against Iran is just because Shia are a minority and less profitable to exploit. It makes no sense to hold such a stance. It's just overall competition between much larger powers for influence over resources.

You have to understand that instability is not the goal. Division however is. The world chopped up the Ottoman Empire after WWI and divided it amongst foreign powers to fuel our own industrialization. We created fake lines in the sand and instilled false senses of nationalism. The goal was not instability. It was to permanently erase the Caliphate from history or future and exploit the entire region to fuel industrialization. 

The Islamic State is very aware of that, which is exactly why they are doing what they are doing.

I fail to see how our opinions differ on this. Divide and Destabilize are interchangeable in this context. 

 

 

Citation needed.

 

I thought it was common knowledge that the organizers were trained on campaigning and given software to avoid detection by the governments. The New York Times did a couple articles on it, hell it even popped up on CNN prime time! But if you don't want to type into Google search I'll be more than happy to track down some articles when I have time over the weekend.

 

We support the FSA solely because they are the only group who aren't necessarily Sunni extremists who want Assad removed. That being said, FSA is a garbage ally of Al Nusra with no political goals. They are simply Sunni defectors who hate Alawites.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Are you denying the logic defying nature of the US support?

 

The Kurds are not even a single united faction. The US relations with the Kurds are pretty damn good in modern times. I mean, we are the ones who created the autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan. According to our own government, there is nothing to suggest they will not support an independent Kurdistan, but quite the opposite.

The modern day conflicts between the Kurds and their neighbors, specifically Iran is a conflict that predates the United States. They have been trying to get an independent Kurdistan for hundreds of years. The Soviets by no means "created" the Kurds.

                   

The United States will not support a Kurdistan regardless of how disunified the Kurdish nations are. Turkey will not allow it, and Turkey is one of three relevant 'allies' in the middle East. If Iraqi Kurdistan exists than Turkey's Kurdistan will use it to justify their right to exist. It simply will not happen unless we lose Turkey as an ally. Then an Iraqi Kurdistan would be created to subvert the Turks and Iranians. 

 

In 1953 after the Iranian coup solicited by the United States, the Soviet Union lost influence of Iran. In response the Soviets used the large kurdish population they had to subvert Iran. They enabled, if you will, the Kurds to establish themselves again. If it were not for Soviet influence the Kurds would not be where they are today; Hence, their marxist views.

I thought it was common knowledge that the organizers were trained on

campaigning and given software to avoid detection by the governments.

The New York Times did a couple articles on it, hell it even popped up

on CNN prime time! But if you don't want to type into Google search I'll

be more than happy to track down some articles when I have time over

the weekend.

I actually take that back. I do specifically remember the CIA was funneling anti govt media into Syria for years.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Are you denying the logic defying nature of the US support?

Nope. Just trying to make sense of it.

 

The United States will not support a Kurdistan regardless of how

disunified the Kurdish nations are. Turkey will not allow it, and

Turkey is one of three relevant 'allies' in the middle East. If Iraqi

Kurdistan exists than Turkey's Kurdistan will use it to justify their

right to exist. It simply will not happen unless we lose Turkey as an

ally. Then an Iraqi Kurdistan would be created to subvert the Turks and

Iranians. 

 

 

In 1953 after the Iranian coup solicited by the United States, the

Soviet Union lost influence of Iran. In response the Soviets used the

large kurdish population they had to subvert Iran. They enabled, if you

will, the Kurds to establish themselves again. If it were not for Soviet

influence the Kurds would not be where they are today; Hence, their

marxist views.

That's not what our own government has implied. Granted, they've pushed the implied date back like 2 decades, but have implied that an independent Kurdistan could exist in the future. And lets be honest, of all the factions involved, they deserve it the most. Turkey is still struggling to meet the demands we've placed on them to become a "modernized, civil country."

And I still wouldn't say the Kurds were made by the Soviets at all. The conflict of Kurdish independents still predates the USSR and through history has ebbed and flowed. Even without USSR, it would rise again.

Nope. Just trying to make sense of it.

Aren't we all? It crosses ethical lines that boggles the mind.

 

 

 That's not what our own government has implied. Granted, they've pushed the implied date back like 2 decades, but have implied that an independent Kurdistan could exist in the future. And lets be honest, of all the factions involved, they deserve it the most. Turkey is still struggling to meet the demands we've placed on them to become a "modernized, civil country."

And I still wouldn't say the Kurds were made by the Soviets at all. The conflict of Kurdish independents still predates the USSR and through history has ebbed and flowed. Even without USSR, it would rise again.

The Kurds had the same experiences as Jews. They were dispersed through central asia. I'm (Pretty) certain that Kurdistan is the USSR equivalent of Israel. They allowed them to migrate back to 'fight' for their land. I think something like 300,000 Kurds were in the USSR at the time. That was the majority of the Kurdish Population.

The way I see it is can anyone truly squash out IS? Its like trying to destroy America, you can do as much damage as possible but as long as the spirit is still America lives on. Same goes for IS when one goes down another takes the place and keeps the terror rolling.   

The way I see it is can anyone truly squash out IS? Its like trying to destroy America, you can do as much damage as possible but as long as the spirit is still America lives on. Same goes for IS when one goes down another takes the place and keeps the terror rolling.   

They can. They are self destructive, so ultimately they will destroy themselves. How we speed up the decay is a totally different debate though.

Well I guess they smuggle in more then we think...

I think something like 300,000 Kurds were in the USSR at the time. That was the majority of the Kurdish Population.

Do you have a source for that?

ISIS

fighters are desperately trying to obtain VIAGRA, spending money on

kinky underwear for their ‘wives’… then subjecting them to ‘brutal,

abnormal’ sex acts according to doctors in Syria

I would totally believe that. According to IS fighters (too lazy to look up a source ATM), they have been amassing a huge stockpile of all sorts of different drugs.

 

But hey, who doesn't want to get laid before they get in a car wreck with a US Hellfire Missile?

I would totally believe that. According to IS fighters (too lazy to look up a source ATM), they have been amassing a huge stockpile of all sorts of different drugs.

 

But hey, who doesn't want to get laid before they get in a car wreck with a US Hellfire Missile?

 

Just in case the 72 virgins turn out to be raisins after all, eh?

Or little boys.

What can you expect from animals...

Where is the Iraqi Army?

Iraq has not had a real army since we destroyed it.

The "new" army were men that needed a job.

They took the money and when ISIS attacked, they dropped their weapons and ran away.

 

Nation building at it's finest.

Iraq has not had a real army since we destroyed it.

The "new" army were men that needed a job.

They took the money and when ISIS attacked, they dropped their weapons and ran away.

 

Nation building at it's finest.

You always have a funny gif in your signature.

I'm glad I posted something in here that didn't make you want to light my head on fire

The only "army" who have managed to halt ISIS and take back some(little) territory is the Peshmerga. After all they have done and will do, they wont get independence. It saddens me. 

http://nypost.com/2015/02/26/isis-destroys-ancient-iraqi-artifacts/

http://nypost.com/2015/02/26/isis-destroys-ancient-iraqi-artifacts/

This is crime against the entire human race. Destroying the history of our planet will destroy our future generations ability to learn from our past. The Earth entire should mobilize against these people... Now. No mercy.

Supposedly 20000 foreigners have joined ISIS since the uprisings. I have mixed feelings about this. For one, it's bad that so many have joined their ranks, but on the other hand, it's good that all the scum are in one place. It's my sincere hope that one day the world will have enough and move in to kill every last one of that 20000.

http://nypost.com/2015/02/26/isis-destroys-ancient-iraqi-artifacts/

 

Not only that but they're selling antiques left right and centre to fund their little party.

 

Supposedly 20000 foreigners have joined ISIS since the uprisings. I have mixed feelings about this. For one, it's bad that so many have joined their ranks, but on the other hand, it's good that all the scum are in one place. It's my sincere hope that one day the world will have enough and move in to kill every last one of that 20000.

While 20k from a global population is a tiny tiny proportion, those who recruited them are still working in those foreign countries and largely walk free. Who knows how many people hold ISIS ideas but are sat in cosy european / american / african / australian houses. Too tired for capital letters.

 

http://nypost.com/2015/02/26/isis-destroys-ancient-iraqi-artifacts/

 

Not only that but they're selling antiques left right and centre to fund their little party.

 

Supposedly 20000 foreigners have joined ISIS since the uprisings. I have mixed feelings about this. For one, it's bad that so many have joined their ranks, but on the other hand, it's good that all the scum are in one place. It's my sincere hope that one day the world will have enough and move in to kill every last one of that 20000.

While 20k from a global population is a tiny tiny proportion, those who recruited them are still working in those foreign countries and largely walk free. Who knows how many people hold ISIS ideas but are sat in cosy european / american / african / australian houses. Too tired for capital letters.

 

 

True. But this is where the necessary evil of big data surveillance comes in. If you think about it, there have been very few actual terror attacks in the western world as of late, and I bet it's not because they didn't try.

 

Meanwhile, some countries are making some very good steps in the right direction, I hope this sets a precedent: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/25/us-austria-muslims-idUSKBN0LT28420150225

That is a start. In that case the most troublesome funding country towards Muslims minorities is Saudi Arabia. If they passed something like this it would really devastate future uprisings.