News Holycrap...

[Stickler]

Dunno if Zerohedge counts as a legit news source, but...I will look into this further shortly...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...ed-isis-tool-overthrow-syrias-president-assad

Edited to add: looks fairly legit.

 

[Fadeaway]

You don't need that news source, follow the history...shit I am outting myself. At the very least we are responsible whether it was intentional or not. They do not hate us because of our "freedoms."

Off to lecture myself on keeping my mouth shut now.:sorry:

 

[Stickler]

Well...I know we have a history of doing this stuff...The mujahideen good guys became the warlords we're fighting in Afghanistan now...Al Qaeda was CIA started...Saddam Hussein was a CIA sponsoree...the Shah of Iran and so forth...

...It never ceases to benefit the military-industrial complex and otherwise blow up in our faces...I'm just FURIOUS to find out our government thought it was a good idea to train and fund these lunatics to fight a proxy war against Assad...
Not that Assad's not horrific, the guy's slaughtered over 200,000 of his own people.

But replacing one horror with another...quite possibly to enable construction of a freaking pipeline. Way to go.:banghead:

@ Fade...no, I think they hate us due to a mix of ideology and the fact that we prop up oppressive regimes and/or have blown up a lot of people that maybe did not need it.

Look, I pay taxes. The blood's on my hands. I'm responsible. I'm not happy.

 

[Fadeaway]

*nods*

 

[Casey_03]

This site is super unreliable, it's known for churning out conspiracy theories and publishing Kremlin propaganda. I saw this firsthand while covering the war in Ukraine. That said, the original source on this doesn't actually say they created ISIS or anything like that, but that they predicted that a fundamentalist group could arise (one of many various predictions). This report completely twisted what the document actually said. If you look at the actual declassified document, it's a lot less dramatic than this report would have you believe. It predicts there is a possibility of a "salafist principality" being established -- not the same thing as a terrorist organization known for beheadings, not the same thing at all. "Salafist principality" really only means a group adhering to fundamentalist principles (there are Salafis all over the place who are not terrorists and live peacefully, so 'Salafi' on its own is not all that terrifying.) Another example of journalists trying to sensationalize.

 

[scout86]

Al Qaeda was CIA started..

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the US sent money to some of the mujaheddin who were fighting the Soviets. Bin Laden was fighting the Soviets. Some of the mujaheddin, ultimately, became Al Qaeda. I'm not sure that's quite the same things as saying the CIA started Al Qaeda. Bin Laden did that on his own, for his own reasons.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Looks like the rabbit hole just got a bit deeper.

LD

 

[Chava]

"Secret Pentagon reports" floating around social media? :meh:

 

[Stickler]

"Secret Pentagon reports" floating around social media? :meh:

Declassified documents from FOIA requests...actually anything that's really incriminating usually won't get released until the principle parties responsible are dead...

However, since Casey( an actual reporter ) is telling me Zerohedge isn't reputable? And true, the document does not conclude we armed/trained them...( I believe they've gotten funding from the Saudis?)...
I will add Zerohedge to the World Nut Daily bin of sites.
I will also seriously question this.

As far as Al Qaeda being CIA funded... Osama Bin Laden was a prince, worked with his family's successful construction firm and had his own money, but worked with the CIA at one point, IIRC?
Anyway...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/06/the-isis-conspiracy-that-ate-the-web.html

This guy had a different take on the report.

...BTW, do I think my government would *maliciously* support DAESH? do I consider that possibility plausible? Less so.

...But with the idea of taking out Assad? Yeaaah...

Assad has still killed many more Syrians than DAESH.

I have not gotten around to reading Chalmers Johnson's other books, but " Blowback" , read some time ago, tells me we've got a history of creating our own tactical enemies in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, I read that book pre-breakdown, so I'd have to get my hands on another copy.

Dead Link Removed

...See the above article, written in 2014? That's business as usual.

So...allowing and-or funding DAESH in secret is plausible enough...and shortsighted/boneheaded enough...

 

[scout86]

tells me we've got a history of creating our own tactical enemies in the Middle East.

Totally. But mostly through stupidity. First, it particularly offends me that our government is willing to work with someone like Saddam when it suits our purposes, no matter what else he does, as long as he doesn't do it to "us". Second, perhaps it would be smarter to spend more time learning about the nature and values and history of the people you're dealing with first, and then proceed with some respect for that and treat it like a real thing.

Sometimes this weird stuff is at least worth filing away for future reference anyway.