ISIS and the future of the Middle East

[Original Poster]

What do you guys think about the current conflict in Iraq? Here's a quick video for anyone not familiar: I'm torn on the issue. On the one hand, constantly intervening in Middle Eastern affairs has done nothing but escalate the violence. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I think ISIS is the penultimate consequence to the escalation of violence we've witnessed and to fight them the Shiites need to embrace equality, give the Kurds their own region where they can practice Kurdish law and enforce their own borders so they can muster up the strength to protect themselves. The Quran states that it is up to Allah to judge, and all who claim to know Allah's judgment are false-prophets. If the Ayatolla embraces Arab Spring, Kurdistan and the wave of social progress moving through the region, they can shift the tide of violence.

[Universal Mind]

We need to stop playing around in that hornets' nest. I wish the good guys the best, but we need to get out of there. We have an economy that is facing collapse because of a debt so high it's almost funny, and our wars in the Middle East have a great deal to do with that. Plus, the hatred that the terrorists feel for us has a lot to do with our Middle East interventions. The terrorists are irrational in the way they handle things, but stirring up the irrational is a futile game that results in irrational chaos. A lot of good things have resulted from our Middle East interventions, but a lot more bad has resulted. In hindsight in 2014, I think the result of our interventions will be perpetual war that perpetuates itself until we decide to stop playing the game. Our situation is like going to a bar full of pissed off hillbillies to protect a small group of people who are way out of place (Israel) and who insist on hanging out there after having stolen another group's table hours ago. Our protection of the table stealers who are out of place leads to angry hillbillies attacking us, so we send more people to the bar to deal with that result of our actions in the bar. We beat up a bunch of hillbillies, so more hillbillies come to fight us, and we bring in more people to fight the hillbillies. Because of this, hillbillies are going to our houses and beating up our roommates. That pushes us to send more people to the bar and to fight more hillbillies and take over some tables. So now even more hillbillies are pissed off and wanting to attack us. Plus, the hillbillies are fighting each other, and we are meddling in that. Where does our part in the situation end? The situation perpetuates itself until... what? Do we keep fighting hillbillies in the bar forever and ever? If we leave the bar, does it mean we are giving in to hillbilly intimidation, or does it just mean we have come to terms with the fact that we had an absurd policy in the first place? I think we need to realize that we are fueling self-perpetuating irrationality by going to the bar and were doing that from the beginning. Let's go home now. If the table stealers want to stay at the bar, that's up to them. It is arguably their table now, but why should we play their game with them? How much longer are we going to interfere in the hillbillies' fights with each other and gather more reasons to fight? What does a hypothetical victory in this involve, and how would we ever achieve it?

[Darkmatters]

Well, you guys know a lot more about this stuff than I do, but my fears are that Isis and other terrorist groups will keep growing and take over more countries, form the biggest outlaw terrorist organization the world has ever seen, and be able to launch attacks against free world countries with impunity, and that we'll have to pay them unbelievable prices for oil. Or do I just watch too much Faux news? In their defense, when there's a liberal president and administration I do believe Fox is a good way to hear the news you won't hear on all the liberal propaganda stations (which is all the other ones) because they don't say anything that reflects badly on them, but of course it's mixed in with all the conservative propaganda..

[Universal Mind]

ISIS may take over a lot of the Middle East. If not, some other crazy organization might. It is a very crazy place that is going to continue to be crazy. However, if we had nothing to do with the affairs of ISIS and they knew that we were retired from the Middle East, do you think they would care about engaging in terrorism against us? They know that we could nuke any country they take over to glass, so they would probably have good reason not to screw with us at that point and no reason to screw with us. They know they have zero chance of ever taking us over. I'm glad Fox News exists because it is the only place we can possibly get the conservative sides of arguments by watching television. I like knowing more than one side of an argument, and all of the other networks are on the same side. Fox News also keeps the liberal universe of T.V. journalism much more on its toes than it would be otherwise. I am a Libertarian and not a Republican, and I think Fox News is biased, but I think it's excellent that a conservative 24 hour news network exists. Now if only there could be a libertarian news network...

[Darkmatters]

.. They're ALL biased one way or another - mostly the one way of course. Well hey, at least you've got Stossel and Stefan Molyneux - he's not on TV and not exactly news, but he does comment on the news after it happens.

[Universal Mind]

Yeah, Stossel is great. There is also Kennedy on Fox Business. We've also got Ben Swann. Ron Paul has an internet channel now, but it's more like a talk show that comes in the form of individual videos.

[Original Poster]

Well, you guys know a lot more about this stuff than I do, but my fears are that Isis and other terrorist groups will keep growing and take over more countries, form the biggest outlaw terrorist organization the world has ever seen, and be able to launch attacks against free world countries with impunity, and that we'll have to pay them unbelievable prices for oil. Or do I just watch too much Faux news? In their defense, when there's a liberal president and administration I do believe Fox is a good way to hear the news you won't hear on all the liberal propaganda stations (which is all the other ones) because they don't say anything that reflects badly on them, but of course it's mixed in with all the conservative propaganda.. But they don't even criticize Obama on issues that actually hold merit. It's just Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi. How are you supposed to get a nation pissed off over one scandal that's completely dwarfed by everything that took place in the previous regime? Bush desensitized the majority of Americans to scandal, that's why no one cares about Benghazi, the same reason the anti-war movement died with Obama. We elected the anti-war president, what the hell else were we supposed to do? The real problem is the lack of information you get. John Haggerty wrote of his experience watching Fox News and it holds true over all cable news networks: My personal Fox News nightmare: Inside a month of self-induced torture - Salon.com

[Darkmatters]

What issues do you think deserve merit that aren't being discussed? Maybe the fact that Obama studied and then taught Frankfurt School ideology via Saul Alinksi's Rules for Radicals (LINK), which amounts to a playbook for how to destroy a capitalist country and force it into socialism? His actions and those of his administration seem to be based entirely on Alinski's very subversive methods.

[Original Poster]

What issues do you think deserve merit that aren't being discussed? Maybe the fact that Obama studied and then taught Frankfurt School ideology via Saul Alinksi's Rules for Radicals (LINK), which amounts to a playbook for how to destroy a capitalist country and force it into socialism? His actions and those of his administration seem to be based entirely on Alinski's very subversive methods. Drone strikes in Pakistan, he needs to be stronger on gun control (he's looser on gun restriction than Bush was), he's imprisoned more whistle-blowers and journalists than any president in history combined for the United States, and for all the lip service he gives the middle class he runs a Reagan economy. If he studied how to overthrow capitalism, as you claim, why is his economic policy more pro-corporate than Reagan? Why are we living in an Objectivist Dystopia where Wallstreet is breaking records and our purchase power is collapsing? You're being lied to. Conservatives are being radicalized by the Koch brothers against a made up socialist threat, and this socialist threat is shifting ever more conservative in the process so that the conservative network is now telling you that the corporatist is really the socialist.

[Darkmatters]

Well he knows where his bread is buttered. I'm guessing the banking and corporate overlords are the elite that will run the "utopia". The strategies I'm talking about are about the middle class being driven into poverty and the lower class being made utterly dependent on government entitlements to keep them all subservient democrat voters, plus opening the border to mass illegal immigration and working to allow them all to vote as well. And throwing massive, unprecedented amounts of tax money into failing and phony companies like Solyndra and creating an unaffordable healthcare act that destroys small companies and forces hordes of full-time employees into part time work or unemployment. My main point for posting here was to draw attention to Rules for Radicals, which has become the default playbook for the left around the world. I'm afraid my disorganized mind has gone off on a tangent and diverted the thrust away from that - so for anybody who didn't clink the link: Spoiler for Article: In spite of the media’s conspicuous silence on the matter, it is no secret that Saul Alinsky’s manual for “community organizers”—Rules for Radicals—exerted an immeasurable influence over the world’s most well recognized community organizer, President Barack Obama. Thus, to understand why Obama does what he does, we need to be familiar with the vision that Alinsky delineated in his book. Below are six ideas, six “rules,” that the Godfather of community organizing packs between the covers of Rules, ideas that Obama’s imbibed hook, line, and sinker. (1). Politics is all about power relations, but to advance one’s power, one must couch one’s positions in the language of morality. Community organizers are “political realists” who “see the world as it is: an arena of power politics moved primarily by perceived immediate self-interests, where morality is rhetorical rationale for expedient action and self-interest” (12). (2). There is only three kinds of people in the world: rich and powerful oppressors, the poor and disenfranchised oppressed, and the middle-class whose apathy perpetuates the status quo. “The world as it is” is a rather simple world. From this perspective, the world consists of but three kinds of people: “the Haves, the Have-Nots, and the Have-a-Little, Want Mores.” The Haves, possessing, as they do, all of “the power, money, food, security, and luxury,” resist the “change” necessary to relieve the Have-Nots of the “poverty, rotten housing, disease, ignorance, political impotence, and despair” from which they suffer (18). The Have-a-Little, Want Mores comprise what we call “the middle class.” While Alinsky believes that this group “is the genesis of creativity,” (19) he also claims that it supplies the world with its “Do-Nothings.” The Do-Nothings are those who “profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and discourage all effective action for change [.]” Alinsky remarks that in spite of their reputable appearances, the Do-Nothings are actually “invidious” (20). This being so, they are as resistant to change as are the Haves. (3). Change is brought about through relentless agitation and “trouble making” of a kind that radically disrupts society as it is. Since both the middle and upper classes have none of the organizer’s passion for radical change, he must do his best to “stir up dissatisfaction and discontent [.]” He must “agitate to the point of conflict.” The organizer “dramatizes…injustices” and engages in “‘trouble making’ by stirring up” just those “angers, frustrations, and resentments” (117) that will eventuate in the “disorganization of the old and organization of the new” (116 emphasis original). He is determined to give rise to as much “confusion” and “fear” as possible (127). (4). There can be no conversation between the organizer and his opponents. The latter must be depicted as being evil. If his compulsion to “agitate” makes it sound as if the organizer is disinclined to converse with those with whom he disagrees, that is because, well, he is. Alinsky is blunt on this point: “You don’t communicate with anyone purely on the rational facts or ethics of an issue” (89). It is true that “moral rationalization is indispensable,” (43) that the organizer must “clothe” one’s goals and strategies with “moral arguments” (36). But there can be no conversation with one’s opponents, for to converse with them is to humanize them. The organizer’s objective is to demonize those who stand in the way of his designs for change. The reason for this is simple: “Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition [is] 100 per cent on the side of the devil.” The organizer “knows that there can be no action until issues are polarized to this degree” (78). Elaborating on this theme, Alinsky asserts that in “charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting” this “with qualifying remarks such as ‘He is a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband,’” one convicts oneself of “political idiocy” (134). The winning strategy is to “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it” (130 emphases original). (5). The organizer can never focus on just a single issue. He must move inexhaustibly from one issue to the next. The organizer “must develop multiple issues,” (76) for “multiple issues mean constant action and life” (78). Alinsky explains: “A single issue is a fatal strait jacket that…drastically limits” the organizer’s “appeal,” but “multiple issues…draw in…many potential members essential to the building of a broad, mass-based organization” (120). The only “way to keep the action going” is by “constantly cutting new issues as the action continues, so that by the time the enthusiasm and the emotions for one issue have started to de-escalate, a new issue” has emerged “with a consequent revival” (161). (6). Taunt one’s opponents to the point that they label you a “dangerous enemy” of “the establishment.” Finally, in order “to put the organizer on the side of the people, to identify him with the Have-Nots,” it is imperative that he “maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy’” (100). Just because Barack Obama has left behind the low-income Chicago communities in which he once agitated doesn’t mean that he left behind the skills as a community agitator that he learned from Saul Alinsky. Rather, he now regards the country as his community to organize as he sees fit. Obama not infrequently invokes American ideals, even while he conspires to “fundamentally transform” America. In spite of what he says, Obama does not want national unity. There can be no unity with a people who one wants to fundamentally transform. The President regularly speaks and acts as if there is perpetual class warfare being waged by “the Haves” on “the Have Nots.” Indeed, this is what he wants for Americans to believe. It is this desire on his part that accounts for why he spares no occasion to demonize both “the richest one percent” who he accuses of refusing to pay “their fair share,” as well as those Republicans who threaten to impede his plans to raise taxes. Again, Obama does not want unity. He wants division. Obama constantly moves from one divisive issue to the next, from Obamacare to gun-control, from amnesty for illegal immigrants to support for “same-sex marriage.” We see now why this is so. Obama does not want unity. He wants to keep the country as polarized and disoriented as possible. To know why Obama speaks and acts as he does, we need to know about Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Source

[Original Poster]

You realize that's not actually socialism. You're describing an oligarchy. Social programs do not create a dependent poverty class, they enable the poverty class to escape poverty and increase the purchasing power of the average citizen. Obama's healthcare reform is gutted but we have the most corrupt medical industry in the world and we need to socialize it like every other advanced, so-called socialist country does. The platform you're claiming Obama holds is to destroy the country by making it more like Europe, apparently, at least according to the healthcare and social programs aspects, but the destruction of the middle class is the result of our country turning away from the European style, which Obama has continued to do in line with Bush, in order to make a corporate welfare state, an oligarchy. It is the conservative, right-wing philosophy which aims to destroy the middle class.

[Darkmatters]

Ok well, I can't follow most of that, and I freely admit I don't know much about politics. I know you've studied it a lot more than I have. I feel like at every level of political knowledge people think they know what's going on and what needs to be done (or at least in what general direction if not a clear plan), but then when they learn more they realize it's more complicated than they thought. I shouldn't have thrown in all the extra stuff, just wanted to link to Rules for Radicals, so that's where I leave it.

[Darkmatters]

Drone strikes in Pakistan, he needs to be stronger on gun control (he's looser on gun restriction than Bush was), he's imprisoned more whistle-blowers and journalists than any president in history combined for the United States, and for all the lip service he gives the middle class he runs a Reagan economy. Just wanted to add, Fox covers all of that, plus Fast and Furious, the divisive presidential pronouncements concerning the Zimmerman trial, IRS scandal, VA scandal, and on and on*. I mean of course they do - they're a 24/7 conservative 'news' station, and need talking points to fill up a lot of time - whenever a liberal slips up even a little, there're all over it! Especially if it's the president or any of his high-ranking administration. Like I said above, Fox is the only television news station that will cover stories reflecting badly on Democrats. They're the only one outside of the Liberal Media Complex. * Of course Fox is in agreement with Obama's handling of whistleblowers, but at least they do cover the stories.

[TwoCrystalCups]

Mhm...notice how Al-cieda isn't mentioned anymore?....now it's ISIS.

[Alric]

"Violence doesn't solve anything", isn't a slogan or a motto, it is the truth. It is no surprise at all that violence in the middle east, led to more violence.

[DeletePlease]

Like I said above, Fox is the only television news station that will cover stories reflecting badly on Democrats. They're the only one outside of the Liberal Media Complex. To be fair, Jon Stewert's Daily Show does a bang-up job of pointing out the incompetence of the Democrats as well. I know he's a satirist and all, but his show is more informative than CNN, MSNBC, etc (which is as depressing as it is ironic). He definitely has a liberal slant, but he's close enough to the center to at least take shots at both sides. I'm not a fan of his audience though. .-.

[Darkmatters]

Absolutely right!! Heh - should I be embarrassed to admit that when I want Liberal slanted 'news' I usually end up watching Jon Stewart or Bill Mahr? They far more entertaining than any of the anchors on the liberal news stations that I've seen. It's been said that conservatives are far better at self-promotion and far more entertaining than liberals, who tend to be fairly stiff and serious about everything. There seems to be a lot of truth in that..

[DeletePlease]

It's been said that conservatives are far better at self-promotion and far more entertaining than liberals, who tend to be fairly stiff and serious about everything. I think it has less to do with being serious, and more to do with the stifling effects of political correctness. As for Bill Mahr, I can't stand the guy. He's too much of an armchair-intellectual for me to take anything he says seriously, dude seems like he buys into his own hype.

[Descensus]

Bill Maher is a fucking tool when he's not being a comedian.

[Original Poster]

Mhm...notice how Al-cieda isn't mentioned anymore?....now it's ISIS. Because Al Queda has denounced ISIS as too extreme and wants nothing to do with them.

[katsung47]

838. Iraq crisis (6/14/2014) All of a sudden, Iraq is in crisis. The second biggest city is fallen. Baghdad is threatened. Iraqi soldiers, police drop weapons, flee posts in portions of Mosul CNN, Fri June 13, 2014 "I only ... saw armed people, but not Iraqi military," said resident Firas al-Maslawi of his drive through Mosul on Tuesday. "There was no presence of any government forces on the streets, the majority of their posts destroyed and manned by (Islamist militants)." The numerous reports of police and soldiers running from their posts in Mosul raised the prospect that the Iraqi government did not either have the will or resources to win this and other fights. Iraqi soldiers, police drop weapons, flee posts in Mosul - CNN.com Iraqi security forces, trained by Pentagon for years and well equipped with helicopters, tanks and armoured cars, vastly outnumber the jihadists, suddenly melted down in the face of ISIL rebels. Consider Al Qaeda jihadists are created and supported by the US to deal with its dislikes (such like Libya’s Gaddafi and Syria’s Assad) and the current Iraq government is a puppet set up by US in Iraq war, both sides are US’ assets. I think it’s a drama conducted by the US. You can see the leadership of Iraqi troops gave up the city without any fight. ISIS butchers leave 'roads lined with decapitated police and soldiers' BySam Greenhilland Jill Reillyand Kieran Corcoran 12 June 2014 According to bitter Iraqi foot soldiers, their commanders slipped away in the night rather than mount a defence of the city. One said: ‘Our leaders betrayed us. The commanders left the military behind. When we woke up, all the leaders had left.’ ISIS militants march on Baghdad with a bullet in the head for anyone who gets in the way | Mail Online US inside group used to create a case, with which to ask for more power and money. E.g. the 911 attack has been created to get Patriot Act and two wars in Mid-East. What is it now for this Iraq crisis? 839. Iraqi crisis created to save dollar (6/18/2014) In early June, Russia switches the oil payment from dollars to Euros. Gazprom Signs Agreements to Switch from Dollars to Euros Global Research, June 07, 2014 Gazprom Neft had signed additional agreements with consumers on a possible switch from dollars to euros for payments under contracts, the oil company’s head Alexander Dyukov told a press conference. “Additional agreements of Gazprom Neft on the possibility to switch contracts from dollars to euros are signed. With Belarus, payments in rubles are agreed on,” he said. Dyukov said nine of ten consumers had agreed to switch to euros. Gazprom Signs Agreements to Switch from Dollars to Euros | Global Research This is very important news. If people starting to abandon the dollar, US will be hurt seriously in economy. Yet the news was little reported by the mainstream media. Several days later, the ISIL rebel in Iraq activates an offensive. The puppet Iraqi government retreats without any resistance. As a result, the oil price goes up. Oil prices spike as Iraq violence flares By Mark Thompson @MarkThompsonCNN June 12, 2014 Oil prices spiked Thursday to levels not seen in nine months as escalating violence in Iraq sparked worries about crude exports. Light crude oil futures touched $106 a barrel, up nearly 2% and the highest price since September 2013. Oil prices spike as Iraq violence flares - Jun. 12, 2014 Since the money used in most oil trading is dollar, the higher oil price will force the buyer to keep more dollar in bank as purchasing power. It’s a big amount if future option is included. Manipulating oil price becomes a strategy to save the dollar. Iraq is a big country of oil production and exportation. Its political stability has huge influence to oil price. US has turned it into a switch to adjust the oil price.

[Descensus]

Please keep your Iraq War fan fiction out of this thread.

[Original Poster]

How about this fan fiction? The title is misleading. This is a former Al Queda leader claiming that ISIS is a tool of the US government to purge Muslims. According to him, not only is the leader of ISIS a U.S. operative, but the entire venture is being secretly funded by the US. It makes sense why ISIS is being so vicious to other Muslims.

[katsung47]

840. US keeps Iraq a battle field to adjust oil price (6/25/2014) Since the recent Iraq crisis created by the US is to save dollar, US will maintain the current situation unchanged. A US craft carrier has been deployed in Mid-East, no air attack has done so far. Analysis: Obama plan leaves Iraq mostly on its own By LARA JAKES 6/20/2014 Analysis: Obama plan leaves Iraq mostly on its own Three hundred US military advisors were sent to Iraq. Their role likely is to instruct Iraqi troops to retreat from cities or oil fields when they want the oil price to go up. Or vice versa. The US will turn Iraq into another battle field. Let Arabs fight Arabs. Decades ago, it was Saddam's Iraq vs. Iran. Now it will be Sunni's Iraq, Saudi, Qarda vs. Shiiti Iraq, Iran. That's a strategy it used to play, just like it manipulates Democrats and Republicans in domestic politics. How the US is Arming Both Sides of the Iraqi Conflict By Tyler Durden Global Research, June 13, 2014 How the US is Arming Both Sides of the Iraqi Conflict | Global Research

[Universal Mind]

But they don't even criticize Obama on issues that actually hold merit. It's just Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi. How are you supposed to get a nation pissed off over one scandal that's completely dwarfed by everything that took place in the previous regime? Bush desensitized the majority of Americans to scandal, that's why no one cares about Benghazi, the same reason the anti-war movement died with Obama. We elected the anti-war president, what the hell else were we supposed to do? The real problem is the lack of information you get. John Haggerty wrote of his experience watching Fox News and it holds true over all cable news networks: My personal Fox News nightmare: Inside a month of self-induced torture - Salon.com You think Fox News only criticizes Obama about Benghazi? They have about a thousand other areas of criticism. His handling of the economy is a major one. Obamacare, Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, gun control attempts, and fanning the flames of class warfare are other major areas. They would criticize his foreign policy, war on drugs support, NSA PRISM advocacy, and Patriot Act / NDAA support, but Fox News agrees with Obama on those issues.