The Middle East Problem

**safeorigin** · November 17th, 2015 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by badkuk

Again pardon my ignorance: just how did Obama pull off Arab Spring? afaik it didn't start with military action, coup, etc., people were marching in the streets. imho for somebody to pull that off, they should have had quite a deal of influence, at the grassroots at that.

On one hand he has no clue about the ME; on the other, he masterminded Arab Spring. And if he's in bed with the Saudis, etc., wouldn't those parties have advised against Arab Spring, since their *$ are on the line if the ME destabilizes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho...ited_States%29

hehe. some of my african friends were confused at the timing of arab spring. "why only now?"

**ClaNker** · November 17th, 2015 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by niky

To say that the United States did it on purpose assumes too much intelligence on the part of the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6kdi1UXxhY

Not really anything surprising or new in this video for anyone who follows the news (and it's probably been posted elsewhere), but a comprehensive look at how American actions in the Middle East led to ISIS.

Ah yes that video. Thanks for sharing.

All that money to the tune of $500M as I posted before.

**safeorigin** · November 17th, 2015 10:01 PM

^you mean this one?

Obama spends $500 million to train 5 anti-ISIS fighters

**ClaNker** · November 17th, 2015 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by safeorigin

^you mean this one?

Obama spends $500 million to train 5 anti-ISIS fighters

Ah yes that one.

**ClaNker** · November 17th, 2015 10:15 PM

He's dead set in getting rid of Asad no matter what, and now totally pissed because Putin rained in his parade. Bibi is next if he is successful.

**safeorigin** · November 18th, 2015 12:05 AM

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-attacks.shtml

It really was less than two months ago that we noted that, having lost the immediate battle for US legislation to backdoor encryption, those in the intelligence community knew they just needed to bide their time until the next big terrorist attack. Here was the quote from Robert Litt -- the top lawyer for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence from September:

Although “the legislative environment is very hostile today,” the intelligence community’s top lawyer, Robert S. Litt, said to colleagues in an August e-mail, which was obtained by The Post, “it could turn in the event of a terrorist attack or criminal event where strong encryption can be shown to have hindered law enforcement.”

Well, as you already know, on Friday there was a tragic and horrifying terrorist attack in France that killed over 100 people. And it took basically no time at all for defenders of the surveillance state to start... blaming Snowden and encryption? It started with the usual talking heads, such as former George W. Bush press secretary and current Fox News commentator, Dana Perino, who seriously seemed to blame Snowden for the attacks based on... who knows what.

wow. just how low can people go to get an agenda forward...

NSA Spying Did Not Result In a SINGLE Foiled Terrorist Plot Washington's Blog

**safeorigin** · November 18th, 2015 01:40 PM

here's some interesting excerpt from a leaked document way back in august 2012:

...there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-cont...-version11.pdf

hehe. enjoy the "show"

**badkuk** · November 18th, 2015 01:55 PM

i have to admit, i'm a bit biased against Putin...but it's interesting that the host asked the guy what the situation was in paris, but the interview virtually became a monologue, and somehow drifted to accusations that the US created IS. And the host didn't even blink and accepted it as gospel truth.

This RT News after all, the Russian state-funded TV station...so i'd take their broadcasts with a grain of salt.

Granted, it is possible the US backed the wrong guys, but i have trouble accepting the theory that they masterminded this. They could have been manipulated to do so, but masterminds? i need a bit more convincing. :peace:

**minicarph** · November 18th, 2015 02:33 PM

Lagi naman bini-blame US sa iSIS. like any other war, darsting ang panahon na ayaw na ng American public sending their soldiers to Iraq. And nun dumating yun, they pulled out, created a power vacuum. And ISIS is created, destroying everybody in its path, Iraq government, Syrian government, Al Aqueda, Hezbollah and other factions.

mid east is so tribal that they have so many factions. And here comes a United front sweeping across the territories, one single unifying force. They're brutal we know. But that's only because nakikialam pa western nations, kaya hayun nadadamay ang mga innocent citizens ng mga nations na nakikialam

After the war with the British and American gaining idependence, ano ba ginawa ng America. They checked everything in the american continent, American Indians, Mexicans, Latinos. It was also charscterized by brutal massacres of these tribes. Is it bac yes? But what did it create, a United States of America that saved us in World war 2. Sabi nga ng Japanese admiral sa pearl harbor, we awakened a sleeping giant.

So why does Obama want the Syrian President gone, because the Americans had a hardtime becoming peacekeepers, there are just toomany factions, maiming, sniping, bombing them in the middle east, IS stsnds for Islamic State. US stands for United States. EU stands for European Union.

See the big picture. Europe has been always at war with each other coz of their many culutural and gropolitical differences, the EU united them. middle east is also at war with itself. And the only languagge these people understands to get their objective is through violence. Hindi pwede EU STYLE sa mid east. And that's why this is happening in that part of the world, that's their way eh. Something na pinakekelaman ng Christian western world.

If there was an international human rights body present in the 17th century and 18th century, hindi aagree ang body na ito sa pinaggawa ng America sa natives and the British emoire with its colonies

So that's why most of the extremists are educated Muslims. In fact educated pa nga sa Western universities. Kasi ito din na-learn nila sa history of Western civilization. Civlization na may dark past din full of brutality and violence,

-----

We live in a f&$3:! Up world talaga. That's a given, kelangan ba tayo makialam sa history in the making in that part of the world, YES and NO. Yes because of the humanity by which the war is undertaken. NO because pinakekelaman ba nila tayo if we ourselves conduct our own clean-up war in our region ...

So can we just leave them alone? And wait for the outcome. Stil NO! Why because Americs has done it before, they allowed Hitler to power, akala nila Hitler will be a unfiying force in Europe. hitler was good and diplomatic in the first years, convincing Ausria, Hungary and most of Eastern Europe, thru a peaceful annexation. Little did the Americans know na he was a madman, out to dominate the world. And it was too late. Why was it too late? Sana binefirend na lang nila su Hitler instead of annihilating him, hindi pa lumakas ang Soviet Union with the Iron Curtain and Cold War and Communist threat.

Yan din ang isang risk sa IS, who knows a madman may or may not be created. And then wreak havoc sa mundo sa isa na naman unforeseen outcome,

**niky** · November 18th, 2015 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by badkuk

i have to admit, i'm a bit biased against Putin...but it's interesting that the host asked the guy what the situation was in paris, but the interview virtually became a monologue, and somehow drifted to accusations that the US created IS. And the host didn't even blink and accepted it as gospel truth.

This RT News after all, the Russian state-funded TV station...so i'd take their broadcasts with a grain of salt.

Granted, it is possible the US backed the wrong guys, but i have trouble accepting the theory that they masterminded this. They could have been manipulated to do so, but masterminds? i need a bit more convincing. :peace:

Here's all we need to know to consider this conspiracy theory:

1. Who benefits from increased military spending? The industrialists.

2. Which political party is in the pockets of the industrialists, and has the more pro-hawkish stance? The Republicans.

3. Which President greenlit US operations in Syria? Obama. Is he a Republican? No.

4. Which party is now using the ISIL situation to try and discredit Obama and the Democratic Party? Well... duh.

-

The Republican party loves war. They love terrorism. It gives them a talking point to drum up paranoia, and a chance at another Presidential win. If another war happens at the right time, they might even get another double-term President, like they did with Bush.

But Republicans weren't in charge of everything. It was Obama, at the end, who had his finger on the button.

The US is definitely guilty, in some part, for the rise of ISIS. But it was also definitely a blunder.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Originally Posted by badkuk

i have to admit, i'm a bit biased against Putin...but it's interesting that the host asked the guy what the situation was in paris, but the interview virtually became a monologue, and somehow drifted to accusations that the US created IS. And the host didn't even blink and accepted it as gospel truth.

This RT News after all, the Russian state-funded TV station...so i'd take their broadcasts with a grain of salt.

Granted, it is possible the US backed the wrong guys, but i have trouble accepting the theory that they masterminded this. They could have been manipulated to do so, but masterminds? i need a bit more convincing. :peace:

Here's all we need to know to consider this conspiracy theory:

1. Who benefits from increased military spending? The industrialists.

2. Which political party is in the pockets of the industrialists, and has the more pro-hawkish stance? The Republicans.

3. Which President greenlit US operations in Syria? Obama. Is he a Republican? No.

4. Which party is now using the ISIL situation to try and discredit Obama and the Democratic Party? Well... duh.

-

The Republican party loves war. They love terrorism. It gives them a talking point to drum up paranoia, and a chance at another Presidential win. If another war happens at the right time, they might even get another double-term President, like they did with Bush.

But Republicans weren't in charge of everything. It was Obama, at the end, who had his finger on the button.

The US is definitely guilty, in some part, for the rise of ISIS. But it was also definitely a blunder.