The war on ISIS.

[TenEightyOne]

Boko Haram. That was....that was us too right.

Damn our past! We've brought this on ourselves!

I infer sarcasm but will take your statement at face value. Yes, if you go back to the western (particularly British) colonisation of Africa, specifically Nigeria, you'll see the roots of the radical opposition that has spawned Boko Haram and others.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Yes, if you go back to the western (particularly British) colonisation of Africa, specifically Nigeria, you'll see the roots of the radical opposition that has spawned Boko Haram and others.

Be careful making statements like this - it may be too much for some people to comprehend.

 

[squadops]

I think ISIS/ISIL is blessing in disguise. Why? For one thing with the presidential elections/debates coming up we're finally going to face the reality that groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda are a product of foreign intervention in the middle east of the west, not mention the blind support for Israel. Secondly ISIS dismiss the argument that terrorist/jihadist are social outcast e.g. these are people lacking in social mobility when in reality we see the vast majority of Al Qaeda and ISIS followers coming out of secular countries not to mention these individual come from highly educated backgrounds.

How is this a good thing?

Foreign policy most likely will not play as important a roll in the elections as it did in '08, Obama benefited some by claiming to be against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unless we put troops on the ground sometime soon. In '12 Ron Paul gave it his best shot, he was the only candidate to point out the downsides to U.S. policy in the middle east, it's fair to say no one listened or cared. In '16 we are going to see Hillary Clinton and a few republican neo-cons, all with the same core middle east policies in mind. I can't see any candidate, news agency, or debate organizer bring up U.S. support of Israel as a key running issue.

ISIS's ability to recruit in secular countries has been in the news for a while now, at this point no one is taking their abilities lightly. The U.S. is going to stay strongly against them along with the vast majority of the world, if anything ISIS success is all the more reason for the U.S. to stay engaged in the middle east.

It sounds like you think there is going to be some big aha moment and the U.S. is going to give up all her interests and security. That's not going to happen. The agenda will be in filling the voids created by western interventions.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I imagine that they would be hesitant to bring up the relationship with Israel as a key issue. Look at Netanyahu's response to the Iranian deal. The tight relationship with Israel has eased somewhat - once upon a time, Netanyahu wouldn't have needed to lobby to Congress - so if a total re-evaluation of it came up as an election issue, then the candidate would likely be in for a rough ride during the campaign.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Boko Haram. That was....that was us too right.

Damn our past! We've brought this on ourselves!

Let's not forget that any foreign intervention that the US has historically done has turned out badly. The rise of Nazism in World War 2 was a direct result of the Allies in World War 1 imposing heavy economical sanctions to the point to where it created hyperinflation in the country. One might even make the argument that the rise of communism in China was created by our intervention.

The point is that this will get a lot worse before it gets better, and unfortunately the only one who will get the end result is Israel.

 

[KSaiyu]

Be careful making statements like this - it may be too much for some people to comprehend.

Earliest decade please where you believe Western intervention should never have occured.

Shall we go with one in the 20th Century?

19th?

Crusades?

Back up your statement. It's your time to shine.

In the meantime I'd welcome your suggestions on how we counter the latest manual to be aimed at Western Jihadis:

An Islamic State manual for preparing, funding and carrying out lone-wolf terrorist attacks in the West is being shared on jihadist forums.

The 70-page guide aims to create sleeper cells of one or two people and advises would-be terrorists to change their name, alter their appearance and westernise their ways.

Written in fluent English, the guide urges jihadists to raise funds through online scams and benefit fraud and tells readers: “If the [shedding of] non-Muslim blood is permitted by scholars, then no doubt their wealth is.”

The elements in the guide that will most concern security services relate to the making and handling of crude weapons, and references to designing homemade bombs and mobile-phone detonators.

One section instructs its sympathisers to eschew Islamic clothing, to wear coloured contact lenses that give you a distinctive look to confuse witnesses giving your description and adopt a westernised pseudonym.

A section titled “secret white converts” gives advice on converting sympathetic westerners in order to develop a cover story and gain influence and access to people in positions of power.

“Befriend good decent white people who are dissatisfied with their governments, be close to them and offer them support and guidance in life.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Back up your statement.

Alright.

Let's be clear - this is what TenEightyOne posted:

I infer sarcasm but will take your statement at face value. Yes, if you go back to the western (particularly British) colonisation of Africa, specifically Nigeria, you'll see the roots of the radical opposition that has spawned Boko Haram and others.

And this is what I replied with:

Be careful making statements like this - it may be too much for some people to comprehend.

Now, you want me to provide evidence of this - that people may find TenEightyOne's post difficult to comprehend.

Now that we've got that settled, I present to you the evidence that you demand:

Earliest decade please where you believe Western intervention should never have occured.

Shall we go with one in the 20th Century?

19th?

Crusades?

Back up your statement. It's your time to shine.

I think I've proven my case.

 

[KSaiyu]

I think I've proven my case.

Well no, actually. You've just dodged answering anything. Again.

 

[TenEightyOne]

In the meantime I'd welcome your suggestions on how we counter the latest manual to be aimed at Western Jihadis:

Source for the number of previous manuals?

Don't count ones created by white, Christian westerners.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Well no, actually. You've just dodged answering anything. Again.

Why am I going to bother answering when I know that by doing so, I'm walking into an obvious trap? The fact that you seem to think that all radicalisation could have been averted by a policy of non-intervention is a generalisation and a fallacy; no doubt you've got what you think is a clever retort hidden up your sleeve, because prior experience tells me that that's exactly how you think a proper debate is run.

 

[KSaiyu]

Why am I going to bother answering when I know that by doing so, I'm walking into an obvious trap? The fact that you seem to think that all radicalisation could have been averted by a policy of non-intervention is a generalisation and a fallacy; no doubt you've got what you think is a clever retort hidden up your sleeve, because prior experience tells me that that's exactly how you think a proper debate is run.

That's called debating.

Source for the number of previous manuals?

Erm...Start with Management of Savagery and move on from there I guess?

Don't count ones created by white, Christian westerners.

Why would I? They are separate groups unless the IRA have created links with IS that we don't know about?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Erm...Start with Management of Savagery and move on from there I guess?

No, that described inter-Isla'amic state control through jihadist principles. Keep going.

Why would I? They are separate groups unless the IRA have created links with IS that we don't know about?

I was countering your horror that such a manual might exist for jihadis. Does the existence of subversive manuals/doctrines suprise you?

 

[KSaiyu]

No, that described inter-Isla'amic state control through jihadist principles. Keep going.

Dude, you start from there and keep going... You will have to search jihadist websites but hey, if you want to have MI5 to possibly take an unusual interest in you by all means.

I was countering your horror that such a manual might exist for jihadis. Does the existence of subversive manuals/doctrines suprise you?

Show my horror. Found it? Nope. Now answer the question (never going to happen).

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That's called debating.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[Sanji Himura]

New ISIS video shows the execution of two groups of Christians in Libya.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-show-christians-being-beheaded-on-the-beach/

 

[F1jocker12]

Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, ansar al sharia....it all goes back to the same place....america's boneheaded/stupid foreign policy in the middle east and africa. To things in prespective, its America thats doing the radicalizing, not the radical imams the media like so much to blame.

Like Israel was after 1967, arab nations are big weapons market

To wage war in Yemen, Saudi Arabia is using F-15 fighter jets bought from Boeing. Pilots from the United Arab Emirates are flying Lockheed Martin’s F-16 to bomb both Yemen and Syria. Soon, the Emirates are expected to complete a deal with General Atomics for a fleet of Predator drones to run spying missions in their neighborhood.

As the Middle East descends into proxy wars, sectarian conflicts and battles against terrorist networks, countries in the region that have stockpiled American military hardware are now actually using it and wanting more.

Saudi Arabia spent more than $80 billion on weaponry last year — the most ever, and more than either France or Britain — and has become the world’s fourth-largest defense market, according to figures released last week by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks global military spending. The Emirates spent nearly $23 billion last year, more than three times what they spent in 2006.

American defense firms are following the money. Boeing opened an office in Doha, Qatar, in 2011, and Lockheed Martin set up an office there this year. Lockheed created a division in 2013 devoted solely to foreign military sales, and the company’s chief executive, Marillyn Hewson, has said that Lockheed needs to increase foreign business — with a goal of global arms sales’ becoming 25 percent to 30 percent of its revenue — in part to offset the shrinking of the Pentagon budget after the post-Sept. 11 boom.

It is the "defense analysts" who influence policies, because the manufacturers will love to hear the word WAR.

But with the balance of power in the Middle East in flux, several defense analysts said that could change. Russia is a major arms supplier to Iran, and a decision by President Vladimir V. Putin to sell an advanced air defense system to Iran could increase demand for the F-35, which is likely to have the ability to penetrate Russian-made defenses.

There is an unquestionably sectarian character to the current conflicts in the Middle East, nowhere more so than in the Saudi-led air campaign in Yemen. The Saudis have assembled a group of Sunni nations to attack Houthi militia fighters who have taken over Yemen’s capital, Sana, and ousted a government backed by Saudi Arabia and the United States. Saudi officials have said that the Houthis, a Shiite group, are being covertly backed by Iran. Other nations that have joined the coalition against the Houthis, like Morocco, have characterized their participation in blunt sectarian terms.

and

But Sunni nations have also shown a new determination to use military force against radical Sunni groups like the Islamic State. A number of Arab countries are using an air base in Jordan to launch attacks against Islamic State fighters in Syria. Separately, the Emirates and Egypt have carried out airstrikes in Libya against Sunni militias there.

from
New York Times
Sale of U.S. Arms Fuels the Wars of Arab States

 

[KSaiyu]

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Pretty sure I've got a good grasp of it 👍

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Your entire post history begs to differ.

 

[squadops]

Like Israel was after 1967, arab nations are big weapons market







It is the "defense analysts" who influence policies, because the manufacturers will love to hear the word WAR.


and



from
New York Times
Sale of U.S. Arms Fuels the Wars of Arab States

Do you really think all of the U.S. policy in the middle east has to do with how many weapons private companies can sell?

 

[KSaiyu]

Aliens...

Ahh the Weapons Market argument. Took you long enough.

 

[F1jocker12]

Do you really think all of the U.S. policy in the middle east has to do with how many weapons private companies can sell?

There is oil as well... A lot...

 

[Johnnypenso]

There is oil as well... A lot...

After fighting for a decade in Iran and Iraq, how much oil did the U.S. steal? The U.S. could have literally just steamrolled through both countries in a matter of weeks using 9/11 and WMD's as justification, taken control of the oil fields, and pumped to their hearts delight if they wanted to. But oh wait...they didn't....

 

[F1jocker12]

After fighting for a decade in Iran and Iraq, how much oil did the U.S. steal? The U.S. could have literally just steamrolled through both countries in a matter of weeks using 9/11 and WMD's as justification, taken control of the oil fields, and pumped to their hearts delight if they wanted to. But oh wait...they didn't....

Big difference between US policies in Africa vs in Middle East... Reason? Oil baby!

Edit - It is about having control over it. Let's say you develop electric systems or you switch to natural gas, and give up the oil from Middle East. The key words here are .... "give up"... You never give up, because somebody else will step in and take control over it... and control over resources is power!

 

[squadops]

It is the "defense analysts" who influence policies, because the manufacturers will love to hear the word WAR.

So you're just going to keep adding reasons as you go, claiming each time the list is complete?

There is oil as well... A lot...

And dangerous leaderships threatening world peace, safe trade, and human rights among other things. And terrorist groups who fly airplanes into buildings and stuff like that.

Big difference between US policies in Africa vs in Middle East... Reason? Oil baby!

And now we're talking about Africa? wut

Edit - It is about having control over it. Let's say you develop electric systems or you switch to natural gas, and give up the oil from Middle East. The key words here are .... "give up"... You never give up, because somebody else will step in and take control over it... and control over resources is power!

This is true, securing resources is yet another motive not included in your all inclusive statement that it's weapon sales.

This idea of control is real, the west does and has done what it can to create dependence. Just going to keep it simple in this thread but this was a major factor in taking out Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. Don't kid yourself into thinking the west is not very interested in Africa as well.

Here is something I intend to read soon.(read the abstract at the bottom)
http://www.ufrgs.br/ufrgsmun/2013/w...vestments-in-the-Middle-East-North-Africa.pdf

 

[F1jocker12]

So you're just going to keep adding reasons as you go, claiming each time the list is complete?

And dangerous leaderships threatening world peace, safe trade, and human rights among other things. And terrorist groups who fly airplanes into buildings and stuff like that.

And now we're talking about Africa? wut

This is true, securing resources is yet another motive not included in your all inclusive statement that it's weapon sales.

This idea of control is real, the west does and has done what it can to create dependence. Just going to keep it simple in this thread but this was a major factor in taking out Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. Don't kid yourself into thinking the west is not very interested in Africa as well.

Here is something I intend to read soon.(read the abstract at the bottom)
http://www.ufrgs.br/ufrgsmun/2013/w...vestments-in-the-Middle-East-North-Africa.pdf

Oil (as a resource) is in strong connection to all those conflicts... Conflicts will create extremism and many victims. The major oficial factor of taking out Saddam was WMD's....

As long Africa doesn't have oil or natural gas (for fracking) it will remain a 3rd world. Africa will industrialize to create goods, after Asia will move to the next stage.

Your link is a good read, but remember, the moment you have resources you have conflict, and when you have conflict you have salivating weapons manufacturers circlyng around.

EDIT Good news - ISIS, Taliban announced Jihad against each other - I wish them best of luck! I'm more excited for this than Pacquiao vs Mayweather!
Middle East philosophical truism - The enemy of my enemy can still be my enemy.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Big difference between US policies in Africa vs in Middle East... Reason? Oil baby!

Edit - It is about having control over it. Let's say you develop electric systems or you switch to natural gas, and give up the oil from Middle East. The key words here are .... "give up"... You never give up, because somebody else will step in and take control over it... and control over resources is power!

When your point gets refuted, just pretend you didn't see the response and move the goalposts...this time all the way to Africa.

 

[Dennisch]

Reportedly, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been severely injured during a bombardment on the 18th of March.

 

[Dotini]

Reportedly, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been severely injured during a bombardment on the 18th of March.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/21/isis-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-wounded-air-strike

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...islamic-state-says-report?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

 

[F1jocker12]

New ISIS video shows the execution of two groups of Christians in Libya.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-show-christians-being-beheaded-on-the-beach/

At least one of the three asylum seekers, T., was held in the Holot detention center in the Negev before leaving Israel. T.'s relative, Mesi, told Haaretz that the family identified him in the ISIS video. "He appears in the video and in the photographs, definitely," she said. "He had been in Israel since the end of 2007. He decided to go back after the [Israeli] Ministry of Interior told him he would be better off."

Last month, the Interior Ministry’s Population and Immigration Authorityconfirmed a report in Haaretz that the authority intends to begin deporting asylum seekers from Eritrea and Sudan to third countries in Africa, even without their consent.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.652834

While this may seem a fair deal, Israel’s record with asylum seekers and migrant workers is, for lack of a better word, awful.

Even worse, the Israeli government has chosen to round up and imprison a portion of the refugees.

Israel Deported Them. Then ISIS Cut Off Their Heads.

Oooooops.... Israel doing the wrong thing again? Darn it!

 

[Sanji Himura]

A falsehood.

A video released by the Islamic State group appears to show the killing of two different groups of captured Ethiopian Christians in Libya.

Now why would the Christians try to go to Israel, knowing that they would have to go through war-torn Libya in the process, when they could have tried to go to Europe to escape ISIS.