War Against ISIL

[dre]

It's an outcome that will just lead us in circles.

Actually it might be the only potential outcome that doesnt. And the beauty of it is, thats what will happen if we do absolutely nothing.

Edited September 25, 2015 by dre

[WIP]

I can't explain that but feel free to do so.

I will dismiss crackpot sources because I value my time. And any site that seriously reports Jade15 is a crackpot source in my view. My facebook feed has people saying the US government has set this up but it defies reason.

I'm not on facebook, so I guess I'm missing out on stuff I'm not interested in! That said, if I followed your way of thinking of dismissing sources because of some of their content, I would erase every single MSM news source available. For example, the NY Times and the Guardian are essential at a time when foreign news bureaus have shut down, but they are often sources of pure propaganda...for example, the Times provided the legitimacy for Bush's invasion of Iraq at a time when they knew the WMD evidence was fraudulent and kept the evidence hidden from the public until months after the War began.

I hear the same crap about some of my favourite news feeds: RT, Al Jazeera and PressTV. But, I don't go to RT for stories on Putin or life in Russia (if I want crap about Putin, I can turn to the MSM). But, on stories like the instigated civil war in Ukraine, while we received a solid wall of propaganda from the conservative and liberal news sources over here, I could find lots of missing pieces in puzzle from Russian media and bloggers....same with Obama's failed regime change in Syria and Libya...these are stories that rightwing US media fail to criticize the president they claim to despise so much.

Now, when it comes to ISIL or ISIS whatever....I don't find any satisfying explanations for how they are able to function in the midst of so much supposedly hostile forces trying to stop them. So far, the only enemies of ISIS that are clearly fighting against them are Kurds, Iraq's Shia militias, Hezbollah, Syrian forces and now Russia. Turkey has used the cover of a war on ISIS to bomb Kurdish villages in eastern Syria, and the US claims to be dropping bombs...which don't seem to hit any useful targets for some reason!

And where is Israel in all this? It's been realized in recent years that there is some sort of de facto alliance between Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan with Israel...though it's something they won't come out and state publicly. And they all claim to be enemies of ISIS...but not willing to do much about it. The Saudis have been able to turn Yemen into a failed state....and the next wave of the refugee crisis, but they don't seem to be a whole lot concerned about which armies all the "volunteers" going to Syria are signed up with.

[Michael Hardner]

the Times provided the legitimacy for Bush's invasion of Iraq at a time when they knew the WMD evidence was fraudulent and kept the evidence hidden from the public until months after the War began.

Perfect is the enemy of good. The NY times is good, compared to the source you posted.

[dre]

Now, when it comes to ISIL or ISIS whatever....I don't find any satisfying explanations for how they are able to function in the midst of so much supposedly hostile forces trying to stop them.

What about mine above?

[Big Guy]

You can plan a conventional war against a conventional enemy. ISIS or ISIL or whatever is not a culture, visible minority or ethnic group - it is a movement. There is no "head" so you cannot cut it off.

To defeat ISIS I suggest is the same way to defeat Quebec Separatism. You cannot. ISIS is just the consolidation of people with the same needs and wants - and resentment of Western interference. Quebec searatism is contained when the majority of people are satisfied with belonging to the Canadian whole. When not, it rears its ugly head.

Before the West started to change the political and religious stand-off of Shia vs Sunni, they acted to create a static and stable antagonism to each other. As soon as we drew lines around areas, called them nations and started to destroy the governments which evolved then the balance was lost and this fiasco ensued. The terrorist toothpaste is out of the tube and the more we try to shove it back in, the greater mess we make.

[eyeball]

Actually it might be the only potential outcome that doesnt. And the beauty of it is, thats what will happen if we do absolutely nothing.

Planning on bribing it isn't doing nothing.

[Big Guy]

This situation in the Middle East is past being ridiculous. Now we have our recently trained allies giving military equipment to our enemies:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/trained-syria-fighters-gave-equipment-nusra-front-150926011820488.html

These guys giving military equipment away are going to be the new government after we take out Assad. Huh?

Why does Canada continue to be part of this "keystone Kops" coalition?

Does our government have any idea what we are part of?

Edited September 26, 2015 by Big Guy

[WIP]

What about mine above?

I think you're assuming that there is a strategy of containing ISIS to begin with. We don't know that yet. The pieces that metastasized and came together as ISIS seemed to be given a long time to fester and carry out attacks on Kurds and the Syrian Government for a few years before declaring their Islamic state.

As for partition...there was no need for partition before US forces invaded Iraq! One of the reasons why there was so much killing and violence early on in the US Occupation was because Sunni and Shia populations in major cities like Baghdad were intermixed throughout the cities...in many neighbourhoods they were even sharing the same mosques. But after regime change, a power vacuum left a complete state of anarchy, and the only forces with guns were sectarian. The big losers in all this have been the minority religions like Christians and Yezidis, and dividing Iraq between Sunni and Shia makes them permanent exiles from lands they lived in for centuries.

I wonder if division was the plan all along! Once the US actually started getting around to proposing a democratic government for Iraq, they set it up by sectarian/not a regional basis....a sure way to increase divisions. And dividing Iraq and Syria into smaller fiefdoms, makes it less likely they can oppose US/Saudi/Israeli objectives in the region. The last thing I am going to assume is that these are all just unfortunate errors by well-intentioned outsiders.

[WIP]

Perfect is the enemy of good. The NY times is good, compared to the source you posted.

NO, the Times pulls up some good stories, but there editorial decisions on major foreign policy issues shows they support the US Government's prolific use of military force...both large and small, all over the world...135 countries by last count: A Secret War in 135 Countries

This year, U.S. Special Operations forces have already deployed to 135 nations, according to Ken McGraw, a spokesman for Special Operations Command (SOCOM). That’s roughly 70% of the countries on the planet. Every day, in fact, America’s most elite troops are carrying out missions in 80 to 90 nations, practicing night raids or sometimes conducting them for real, engaging in sniper training or sometimes actually gunning down enemies from afar. As part of a global engagement strategy of endless hush-hush operations conducted on every continent but Antarctica, they have now eclipsed the number and range of special ops missions undertaken at the height of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan

.

[Michael Hardner]

NO, the Times pulls up some good stories, but there editorial decisions on major foreign policy issues shows they support the US Government's prolific use of military force...both large and small, all over the world...135 countries by last count: A Secret War in 135 Countries

.

How does that contradict 'perfect is the enemy of good' ? You even admit the NYT is good, so why follow crackpot sites ?

[eyeball]

Why does Canada continue to be part of this "keystone Kops" coalition?

Domestic politics seem to be the biggest reason.

Does our government have any idea what we are part of?

I don't think it has a clue myself.

Edited September 26, 2015 by eyeball

[WIP]

How does that contradict 'perfect is the enemy of good' ? You even admit the NYT is good, so why follow crackpot sites ?

When it came to reporting on Iraq prior to Invasion, the Times was worse than anything you label a "crackpot site," because they leveraged their credibility as a news source to back Bush Administration sources they already were aware that were lying and had fraudulent information....like the Niger uranium saga.

In recent years, they spiked a story from their longtime respected foreign journalist - Seymour (Sy) Hersch, and refused to publish his discovery that the Syrian poison gas attacks that the Obama Administration was using as the basis for a proposed bombing and special ops campaign to remove Assad, was actually carried out by a Syrian rebel militia that had taken control of some shells containing poison gas. Hersch could not even get his report published in the Times after the Obama Administration backed off on intensifying the war! Instead, he had to publish his story in the London Review of Books...where nobody but the already interested minority would ever notice it.

This is why I say every source is suspect today! Many of what you consider crackpot sources and dismiss out of hand, will provide accurate information on stories that fit their objectives, and that's no different than what the corporate msm does!

[bush_cheney2004]

When it came to reporting on Iraq prior to Invasion, the Times was worse than anything you label a "crackpot site," because they leveraged their credibility as a news source to back Bush Administration sources they already were aware that were lying and had fraudulent information....like the Niger uranium saga.

So what ? Polled Americans still supported invading Iraq in 2003 regardless of WMD claims veracity. It was policy and a matter of public law to affect regime change in Iraq years before the Bush administration. The NYT had already been busted for fake stories and dodgy journalism.

[On Guard for Thee]

So what ? Polled Americans still supported invading Iraq in 2003 regardless of WMD claims veracity. It was policy and a matter of public law to affect regime change in Iraq years before the Bush administration. The NYT had already been busted for fake stories and dodgy journalism.

So you're saying dodgy journalism should be acceptable justification for launching an illegal invasion?

[GostHacked]

So you're saying dodgy journalism should be acceptable justification for launching an illegal invasion?

Dodgy journalism coupled with false evidence.

[Big Guy]

So a short update: Canada is dropping bombs on ISIS and Assad forces in Syria as part of the coalition of Iraq, USA and a few other nations. Turkey is dropping bombs on ISIS and the Kurds (who are also dropping bombs on ISIS). Iran, the Kurds and a few Syrian rebels are the only folks on the ground fighting ISIS. Russia now has lots of aircraft, heavy military equipment and troops in Syria protecting Assad.

So now - ARE YOU READY? - Iraq has officially announced it is sharing intelligence with Russia, Syria and Iran.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/iraq-russia-iran-syria-coordinate-isil-150927125919507.html

So now Iraq, a member of our coalition (the reason why we are there) has now sharing intelligence with Russia (against whom we are currently applying sanctions), Syria (the Assad troops who we are fighting) and Iran (that other country against whom we are currently applying sanctions).

When are we going to get our airplanes the h#ll out of there?

[WIP]

Can anyone spell "clusterf***?

[Michael Hardner]

When it came to reporting on Iraq prior to Invasion, the Times was worse than anything you label a "crackpot site," because they leveraged their credibility as a news source to back Bush Administration sources they already were aware that were lying and had fraudulent information....like the Niger uranium saga.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller

I had to look back at this but they let the journalist go right ?

This is why I say every source is suspect today! Many of what you consider crackpot sources and dismiss out of hand, will provide accurate information on stories that fit their objectives, and that's no different than what the corporate msm does!

Why isn't there any outrage when your sources are wrong about something ? Simple: they're not trustworthy to begin with. If I read that source I wouldn't be any more aware of what is going on, because there's no reputation and no independent confirmation.

If I were inclined to read such things, all I would have is a bunch of unconfirmed possibilities. I don't have time for that.

[Big Guy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller

I had to look back at this but they let the journalist go right ?

Why isn't there any outrage when your sources are wrong about something ? Simple: they're not trustworthy to begin with. If I read that source I wouldn't be any more aware of what is going on, because there's no reputation and no independent confirmation.

If I were inclined to read such things, all I would have is a bunch of unconfirmed possibilities. I don't have time for that.

I understand that the basic rule of using the Internet for research is to tap as many resources as possible then compare and verify, verify and verify.

[Michael Hardner]

I understand that the basic rule of using the Internet for research is to tap as many resources as possible then compare and verify, verify and verify.

If you have time for this then please go ahead. I don't, so I expect that organizations like the National Post, CBC, New York Times and so on will be validating their reputations for investigation and doing that work for me.

[GostHacked]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller

I had to look back at this but they let the journalist go right ?

Why isn't there any outrage when your sources are wrong about something ? Simple: they're not trustworthy to begin with. If I read that source I wouldn't be any more aware of what is going on, because there's no reputation and no independent confirmation.

If I were inclined to read such things, all I would have is a bunch of unconfirmed possibilities. I don't have time for that.

Talking about sources that are wrong .. Curveball. Which seemed to have a lot of weight in the decision for the US to invade Iraq. Basing a whole invasion of a nation on incorrect information was bound to cause problems in the long run. I guess I should not be surprised by all the short-sighted views many had (in public and on this board).

Do you think Syria is going to play out any different? Take the time now so we don't have to go through all this again a few more years down the road.

[GostHacked]

If you have time for this then please go ahead. I don't, so I expect that organizations like the National Post, CBC, New York Times and so on will be validating their reputations for investigation and doing that work for me.

They are not doing the work for you. They are doing it for their 'interests'. Meaning advertising dollars and political support. I put more value in investigative journalism entities like VICE.

[Big Guy]

The war against ISIS is becoming a joke. The West has an incoherent strategy. We don't know who, what, where or how we are fighting these guys.

Now Putin has turned this Middle East on its ear. He is leading an organized coalition against ISIS based on an alliance of Russia, Syria, Iraq and Iran - all nations that are prepared to go to ground and each has a strategic interest in the area. Putin is basically asking the USA if it wants to join that coalition to wipe out ISIS. The West has some airplanes in Iraq (who are now in the Russian group), some in Turkey and some others scattered around the region.

The Russia coalition has Russian heavy military and airplanes and troops on the ground, Iran has a military ranked about 20th in the world and boots on the ground right now fighting ISIS. Iraq has lots of military equipment and supplies provided to them by the United States. They also have boots on the ground against ISIS. Syria has a military ranked about 40th in the world and has thousands of troops on the ground right now fighting ISIS and Syrian rebels (and avoiding American and Canadian bombs).

I suggest that Canada say "lots of luck Putin", pull all our forces out of the Middle East and suggest that the USA do the same. Let Putin and his coalition deal with ISIS.

[Michael Hardner]

I put more value in investigative journalism entities like VICE.

Vice is indeed interesting, I admit. Shane Smith going to North Korea was priceless.

[WIP]

They are not doing the work for you. They are doing it for their 'interests'. Meaning advertising dollars and political support. I put more value in investigative journalism entities like VICE.

NO and I mean NO media source can be taken at face value to cover all news and issues fairly these days. And that includes a lot of new liberal media favoured by Democrats in the US and Liberals here, like Buzzfeed, Gawker, Huffpo, and Vice News! What you're going to find is that an organization like Vice...which for some reason has endless supplies of money behind it compared to what I consider honest sources like Consortium News, Real News Network and DemocracyNow, and Vice will present stories where it seems like they are going after the right people....and then when it comes to the Ukraine, they churn out the same crap that every other news source in the US comes up with....and that's where the suspicions about how much editorial control a major backer like George Soros has on Vice behind the scenes, becomes a factor.

So in the final summation, I'm suspicious of every organization regardless of their political alignment that is well funded (Vice news is worth 1.6 billion) to cover everything honestly. My suspicions are that sensationalist left-leaning media like Vice and the liberal clickbait crap like Huffpo, Gawker, and Buzzfeed are there to work the left side of the aisle and drop in essential propaganda that their wealthy patrons want added in to the news.