Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq

[Ichingcarpenter]

The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions. On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.

The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead withthe trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition.

That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance” boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scale”. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.

Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much. But it’s only the latest of a string of such cases. Less fortunate was a London cab driver Anis Sardar, who was given a life sentence a fortnight earlier for taking part in 2007 in resistance to the occupation of Iraq by US and British forces. Armed opposition to illegal invasion and occupation clearly doesn’t constitute terrorism or murder on most definitions, including the Geneva convention.

But terrorism is now squarely in the eye of the beholder. And nowhere is that more so than in the Middle East, where today’s terrorists are tomorrow’s fighters against tyranny – and allies are enemies – often at the bewildering whim of a western policymaker’s conference call....................


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

[merrily]

1. Whatever you may wish to say about Bush and invading Iraq--and there's loads to be said--

he fulfilled his Constitutional obligation by asking Congress to authorize him to use military force. And, whether it was for fear of losing re-election votes, for a PNACish vision or for anything else, Representatives and Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, gave it to him, even though I did not, then or now, meet a single Democrat who believed his BShit about Iraq. Additionally, every network and network news anchor aided and abetted him. Moreover, his father and Bill Clinton had both preceded him in bombing Iraq.

So, Iraq III was not exactly only George Bush's war, any more than World War II was only FDR's war, as convenient as it may be for all of us to pretend that about Iraq now. In particular, if Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are the nominees, don't expect any really honest debates about the Iraq War. Everyone who aided and abetted in that mess blames Tenet, from Bush 43 to Powell, to Hillary, even though they all knew it was rigged intel, just as ordinary Americans knew. Much as Bush 41 blamed Glaspie. No clue who Bubba blames.

But, back to topic. Yes, so much crap has flowed from the invasion of Iraq and will continue so to do for at least one or two more generations.

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. The war is not meant to be won

The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation.

The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.


George Orwell

[merrily]

4. Wars have also been fought for land and resources. As global warming continues,

food and water may provide the true, but unspoken casus belli for one war after another. But, Bush war profiteering goes back beyond Prescott to his pappy, Samuel Prescott Bush, colleague of Rockefellers and Harrimans, all names still familiar in politics to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Bush

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[yurbud]

20. or in this case, the zombies of terror from Saudi are meant to undo the strategic blunder of Bush in

giving Iraq to Shi'ites.

I don't care which sect has the upper hand personally.

[Ichingcarpenter]

21. Actually .............. I wanted to talk about another thing

that is so ancient but still has not changed but is getting more in the human or human awareness on the negative but power there is in fear, hate, control and the reasons we are here on this planet for the limited time we think we have here


Many we know ... think something is so wrong on this planet that we are reaching a paradigm, that even a capitalist or organize religion knows something is not working for them.


Carlos Castanda explained from Don Juan world that there are energies, beings that feed off of pain, torture and suffering. That is only one example we know about from him but here are many more that talk about this from many other cultures....They feed off of war, torture
, pain and suffering...... Hate

This battle we have is more than we can know or explain on this limited sphere ......

[JDPriestly]

9. Bush and Cheney cooked the intelligence and the evidence that led us into the Iraq War.

The Obama administration blundered its way into providing material support to ISIS.

The Obama administration blundered. Bush and Cheney fabricated or failed to investigate lies. There is a big difference in terms of intent. But the results are horrible in both cases.

Bush and Cheney were seeking a reason, an excuse to go into Iraq and had Syria among other nations in the line of sight. But Obama just kind of allowed himself to be pushed into really bad decisions. Intent v. negligence.

[merrily]

10. My prior post said nothing about Obama.

In general, though, I think assuming we know motives is speculative, at best. I don't even always know all my own motives for my own behavior. What I do know about Iraq is that I did not believe the intel or the media as to the Iraq invasion, nor did anyone I knew. I very much doubt Democrats or Republicans in Congress who voted for that war, even advocated for it, knew less about the cooked intel than my friends and I. Or Susan Sarandon.

[delrem]

2. I hear that it's all George W. Bush's fault,

and the leading Democratic candidate is innocent. Innocent.

What I know from reading DU is that the vast majority of contributors believe what they want to believe, and only a tiny minority is willing to accept the full implications of bipartisan US complicity, and continuity of plan.
Very very few are willing to read and absorb information like this.

[merrily]

5. Maybe more a vastly vocal minority of DUers than a vast majority?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6592890

Oh, look. The Hillary line finally "soared" to more than a tenth of the Bernie line. For the longest time, the ratio was almost exactly ten to one.

And seriously, who knows what posters really believe? All we know is what they post; and on a message board, the reasons people post what they do is a mystery.

[delrem]

6. I honestly don't see much honesty on WoT issues.

I see an overwhelming meme that the situation in the ME is all W's fault, and I've seen almost no acknowledgement of the US role in ME wars since Obama assumed power.
It's so bad it scares me (yes, really, it *scares* me).

That's just my perception, mind you - but I'm a bit of a DU addict so I don't think I'm missing all that much.

[JDPriestly]

8. It is now 10% Hillary and 90% Bernie.

I suppose that means that Hillary has more than a tenth of the Bernie line, but she has only 10% of the overall vote. And we on DU are very knowledgeable about politics. That does not look good for Hillary. We are the vanguard of the Democratic Party.

[JDPriestly]

7. Benghazi!!!

Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State until 2013. Therefore she was in charge when this was going on and started.

I remember discussing the problems with American support for the rebels in Syria with MADem back in the day. I warned that we could not support rebel groups in Syria because we could not know which of them were fanatical and dangerous. I don't think I used those words.

Supporting the rebels in Syria in this way was a gross error.

[merrily]

12. .....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=7030

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. Neocon "Chaos Promotion" in the Mideast (Ray McGovern

Neocon "Chaos Promotion" in the Mideast
http://commondreams.org/views/2015/04/14/neocon-chaos-promotion-mideast

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016120117

[malaise]

11. Business as usual

Divide and rule - ignore the deaths - loot, plunder, kill and take charge...rinse and repeat.

[Ichingcarpenter]

14. Don't forget to add

ask for more money for the pentagon on your repeat list.

[Unknown Beatle]

15. And then have trillions of dollars disappear

while the middle class collapses.

[malaise]

16. Oh yes

[Martin Eden]

17. The lesson to be learned from this: MORE military intervention is NOT the solution ...

... unless the objective is the kind of sustained chaos and bloodshed that's going on now.

[Scuba]

18. It's no secret we dropped lots of terror seeds from the sky.

[roamer65]

19. The Iranians will have to clean up our mess.

Just like the Vietnamese had to with Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in 1979.