Do you think the US foreign policy establishment are in the cahoots with the Islamic State?

[betterdemsonly]

Many here express shock that most Iraqis believe this. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1276289

However I believe this is common view here on DU.

17 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired
	Yes
	7 (41%)
	No
	10 (59%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[MohRokTah]

1. That's some wackadoo conspiracy theory garbage right there. eom

[betterdemsonly]

2. So our objective in Syria has not been the overthrow of Assad? For like 3 years?

Now suddenly we fight a two front war, with jihadis armed with American weapons. Our allies, the Saudis the Qataries and the Israelis aren't more interested in defeating Iran than Isis? We never supported terrorists like bin Laden during the Soviet engagment with Afghanistan?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

9. Yea! I'm mean, NOTHING like that has EVER been done by our goverment before! To think something...

...like that could be done by ANYONE in our government is just INSANE and ... well ... WACKADOOooooooooo!

[TwilightGardener]

3. Not cahoots. But I don't think we're in a hurry to eliminate them, either.

Maybe Prez. O is, but the national security establishment feels it has a golden egg machine here.

[Ichingcarpenter]

10. 'The national security establishment '' what does that even mean?

and who does that include? The council for foreign relations?
I agree its naive to think that perpetual war is not advocated and have advocates within the structure of the ''.national security establishment'' Vietnam, Iran/Contra, Iraq and Afghanistan should at least give some a clue.

[TwilightGardener]

11. I mean the Pentagon, defense contractors, think tanks who support the defense industry,

manufacturers--anyone who profits from an endless threat. When the ISIS thing first blew up, Kerry said we should be able to take them out pretty well in three years. Less than a year later, the Joint Chiefs declared that taking out ISIS would be a "generational struggle". Someone got their way. It wasn't Kerry. The fight against ISIS has been halfway, bumbling, half hearted, through all of this year. It started out strong, last summer and fall, and then withered. Plans were abandoned to retake Mosul. We didn't help with airstrikes or backup when ISIS took Ramadi. We let the train and equip program for rebels flop. We weren't taking out fuel trucks or oil infrastructure anymore, since last fall. We cut back on airstrikes in Northern Syria in support of Kurds, until very recently. So the half-hearted, deliberately ineffective air war turned into calls for a ground war, and now we're spinning one up. Funny how that works.

[Ichingcarpenter]

22. General Petrayus now works for a world hedge fund firm

I agree.........

Compartmentalization of government secrets and the use of private contractors enable nefarious motives that allow the left hand to not see what the right hand is doing........I just questioned the OP's use of the term'' national security establishment''

The Hilux truck episode by the State Department is just another example of what I've talked about before and you may add to this clusterfuck.
Where are the plans for peace? The 'war on terrorism' is just a bad excuse for perpetual warwith no long term goals or endgame.

[TwilightGardener]

24. Yup. SecDef Carter abruptly and mysteriously quit his deputy post in October 2013

and went immediately to Goldman Sachs to advise them on global investments, and was magically back in the Pentagon a year later. I wonder what profitable pearls of wisdom Goldman Sachs received about upcoming world events, which he was then able to come back and "make happen"? Neither Petraeus or Carter serve the nation, they serve themselves and those whom they help to profit. It's disgusting. Edit to add: even more disgusting is that Obama seems to have no problem with these people.

[betterdemsonly]

40. I didn't use the phrase "national security establishment"

I used the phrase "foreign policy establishment," which would include politicians.

[Township75]

26. Why not Obama ?

He helped destabilize several Arab nations like Libya and Syria with air strikes and arms to "moderate Rebels ". As if any army is moderate.

The military and foreign establishment report to him so if something is going on then he is part of it.

[TwilightGardener]

29. After seven years, my take is that he's well-meaning but knows he has little control

over foreign and defense policy, no control over the CIA. He kind of half-heartedly goes along with neocon shit, and then pulls back, and then goes along with it, and then pulls back. By this point, he's pretty much given up. Hence the sudden new ground combat war in Iraq and Syria, which isn't really a war, it's an "expeditionary force"--another Obama compromise.

[hifiguy]

34. The last president who exercised any

meaningful control over the MIC/CIA/foreign policy was John F Kennedy. We all know the reward they gave him.

[TwilightGardener]

36. I know.

[betterdemsonly]

41. I think the phrase "foreign policy establishment" would include the democratic leaders. n/t

[951-Riverside]

4. Yes

The plan has always been to supply them with training, weapons and money then set them loose to destabilize countries and slaughter millions for a few years then come in with tanks, drones and bombs to finish off whats left while making an insane profit from the conquered land.

The "founding fathers" would be proud of the mass genocide the military industrial complex was able to accomplish against the indigenous population in a matter of a few years using these mercenaries for hire and contractors.

and...



Video: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/syria-arming-the-rebels/

NARRATOR: But in recent weeks, they have been receiving more sophisticated weapons. It appears the Obama administration is now allowing select groups of rebels like them to receive U.S.-made anti-tank missiles, known as TOWs. Many of the fighters have filmed themselves firing the missiles. In addition to receiving weapons, the commander says he and his men were taken on a long journey to a secret training camp.

REBEL COMMANDER: [through interpreter] They asked for a group of 80 or 90 fighters from our command, and we headed towards the Turkish border.

NARRATOR: Based on their accounts, we retraced their journey across the border into Turkey. After a 14-hour drive, they say they arrived in the Turkish capital of Ankara and were brought to a hotel. They were kept inside and questioned by Americans, who would only say they were from the military. But the rebels believed they were from the CIA.

REBEL COMMANDER: [through interpreter] We met them for six to seven hours a day. It was medical examinations, questions for each person individually, like, “When did you join the uprising?” And “What was your profession or military rank?”

They had tracked our work and asked us to verify information about attacks we carried out, such as who was present and how many men were martyred. Your responses have to match the entire group’s.

NARRATOR: A week later, the rebels say they were surprised by what happened next.

REBEL COMMANDER: [through interpreter] We only found out where we were going to be trained on the last day in Ankara, when the Americans said goodbye and that, “Tomorrow, we’ll see you in Qatar.”

NARRATOR: They were flown 1,500 miles away to Doha, the capital of Qatar, which is a key U.S. ally in the Persian Gulf.

REBEL COMMANDER: [through interpreter] We drove for about two, two-and-a-half hours to reach the training ground. It was close to the Saudi border. We didn’t know where we were because it was desert all around.

NARRATOR: Over the course of three weeks, they say they were trained by Americans at a base in the desert guarded by Qatari soldiers. Like many of the rebels who were sent to Qatar, 21-year-old Hussein had never had any previous military training.

HUSSEIN: [through interpreter] They trained us to ambush regime or enemy vehicles and cut off the road. They also trained us on how to attack a vehicle, raid it, retrieve information or weapons and munitions, and how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush.

NARRATOR: The rebels were outfitted with brand-new uniforms and boots.

MUHAMMAD ALI: [subtitles] Those trousers are from them, right?

HUSSEIN: [subtitles] Yeah. We got these boots in training.

MUHAMMAD ALI: The Americans were warning the fighters not to tell this story at all. And even at one point, they told them, “If in any case this story will be published, we will stop funding you or arming you.”

NARRATOR: The CIA and the State Department declined to comment on the fighters’ accounts of arming and training, though the Obama administration has said it plans to step up support to the rebels, and there have been other reports the CIA is running covert training out of Jordan.

[betterdemsonly]

5. The evidence is not on the side of those who charge this is a conspiracy theory.

They are just partisan hacks, and professional named callers, in both parties, not to mention the corporate media, which is mostly owned by arms dealers that profit from having a hosed foreign policy.

[951-Riverside]

6. "They are just partisan hacks."

For who and which side betterdemsonly?

[betterdemsonly]

7. The military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. n/t

[951-Riverside]

18. Sorry! I totally misread your post

Doh!

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. Your PBS transcript is about the Free Syrian Army

so why did you post it here and pretend it's about ISIS?

You post a video from StormCloudsGathering, a website calling for Obama to be impeached: http://stormcloudsgathering.com/barack-obama-the-case-for-impeachment-scg-news-5152013

Why are you trying to mislead DU, and siding with people who shout about "the Benghazi coverup, the IRS scandal, where the government has admitted it used the IRS to target political activists, and the AP scandal where the Obama administration has been caught seizing phone records of journalists"? What is your true agenda?

[951-Riverside]

39. Just curious which party do you think John McCain belongs to?

...Because he happens to be one of the biggest cheerleaders for arming terrorists with American weapons and in fact he personally visited Syria and met with them

Your PBS transcript is about the Free Syrian Army

Is it really?

US-trained Division 30 rebels 'betray US and hand weapons over to al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria'

Pentagon-trained rebels in Syria are reported to have betrayed their American backers and handed their weapons over to al-Qaeda in Syria immediately after re-entering the country.

Fighters with Division 30, the “moderate” rebel division favoured by the United States, surrendered to the al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra, a raft of sources claimed on Monday night.

Division 30 was the first faction whose fighters graduated from a US-led training programme in Turkey which aims to forge a force on the ground in Syria to fight against Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11882195/US-trained-Division-30-rebels-betrayed-US-and-hand-weapons-over-to-al-Qaedas-affiliate-in-Syria.html

What is your true agenda?

You first

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. "Is it really? " Yes. it is. To pretend otherwise would be to lie.

A group of fighters from the main moderate faction, The Free Syrian Army, agreed to meet Muhammad...

OK, me first, if you want: I think your true agenda is to attack President Obama, like the OP attacks him, as supporting a genocidal religious group. You want the Democratic Party to lose in all the elections it stands in. That's why you put up a video from an anti-Obama group, and pretended PBS was talking about ISIS.

So, I've given the evidence for why you are trying to hurt the Democratic party. What's your defence?

[951-Riverside]

49. Again, which party do you think John McCain belongs to?

Go ahead.

Here's my post again: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027402920#post39

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. You're trying to deflect from your anti-Democratic posts

Just because you think John McCain supports ISIS too, that doesn't excuse you claiming that Obama does.

Go on, defend your use of idiotic anti-Democrat conspiracy theories. So far, you seem to be admitting to it, judging by your silence.

[951-Riverside]

53. It very strange that you continue to refuse to say which party McCain belongs to...

And ignore discussing the photo and videos of him openly pushing for arming these groups.

I'll ask for a 3rd time, which party do YOU think John McCain belongs to?

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. You're trying to deflect from your anti-Democratic posts

[betterdemsonly]

63. Being against the party leadership isn't antidemocratic

but being an Orwellian hack, you can not conceive of this.

[betterdemsonly]

42. Because it is well documented that much of the free Syria Army defected to Isis.

so it is well justified.

[Javaman]

8. no, but I think some of the people who we supply with weapons certainly are...

and we look the other way.

[Marrah_G]

12. Nope

Our past and present actions might be part of the cause of Isis, but no, we are not in cahoots with them.

[betterdemsonly]

14. This wasn't unforseen

Non-neocons warned from the beginning that overthrowing Assad could tip the balance in favor of a Taliban like state, but Obamaco wouldn't listen, and still aren't listening.

[Orrex]

13. I suspect that Hillary is personally funding ISIS out of her personal server in Benghazi

[betterdemsonly]

15. She doesn't need to she has the leaders of both parties in support of her neocon agenda. n/t

[Orrex]

16. What's funny is that no one believes the silly subject line of my post, but...

People probably believe the silly subject line of yours.


Hey, as long as they vote for her in Nov 2016, it's all good.

[betterdemsonly]

19. Well it isn't no-one but not many who are reading this thread are bothering to respond so I suspect

fear of riling up the people who are on mirt. 238 readers but on 22 responses. That is pretty strange. It only takes a second to click, yes or no. I admit I'll survive any mirt jihad, only because I am not a professional activists and don't hang here often.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. I am amazed that anyone can think like you and still believe themselves to be a Democrat

Your cognitive dissonance is huge. Probably most people don't respond to you because you're obviously here to stir up shit. I'm wondering if I should just have ignored you even as I write.

[betterdemsonly]

43. I think many of the prowar dems here were Bush voters, 10 years ago

so back at you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. You're the one accusing the Democratic leaders of supporting religious-based genocide

That's why you're not a Democrat. What your true politics are, I can't tell, but you're obviously an extremist. Could be far left, far right ....

[betterdemsonly]

50. The leadership aren't royalty. They can be replaced by people who have courage.

We aren't obligated to support them or their positions. The party can change. It used to be home of the dixiecrats. Your accusation that I am far left is just an example of namecalling in the place of rational argument. People who profit from warfare have no right to create a barometer for anyone else.

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. You could accept 'far right', if you want, then

You're accusing Obama of supporting mass murder. You are an extremist of some sort.#

But, if you want to remain on DU, you are required to support the basic Democratic positions:

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.
...
Don't go overboard with the crazy talk.

Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact. To accommodate our more imaginative members we tolerate some limited discussion of so-called "conspiracy theories" under the following circumstances: First, those discussions are not permitted in our heavily-trafficked Main forums; and second, those discussions cannot stray too far into Crazyland (eg: chemtrails, black helicopters, 9/11 death rays or holograms, the "New World Order," the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the like). In addition, please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

You do sound rather like a LaRouchie.

[betterdemsonly]

55. No I am old left wing democrat

He does appear to support moderate syrians even after admitting most of them defected to isis, along with their arms. He is also adopting LBJ's track of thinking America has a right to militarily overthrow governments that don't threaten us, even though it can lead to something worse. Were those who protested his war mistakes extremists, and accused him rightly of sponsoring mass murder, extremists? You are just using partisan hackery as a cover for red baiting the antiwar movement.

Neocons are welcome here if they pretend to be democrats and even run for office as Democrats. I've not talked of the new world order, black helicopters or the trilateral commission. I have just pointed out that we are arming non-existent Syrian moderates, who are using the arms for terrorism. The dem leaders are colluding with this for reasons that are completely mysterious.

I'll bet you are going to vote Christie after cornering progressives into voting for Hillary.

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. No, you say the Democratic leaders are "in cahoots with the Islamic State"

That is, religious mass murderers. I don't know who you are likely to vote for, but presumably it won't be Bernie Sanders:

“We do not want to make a very complex situation in Syria even worse. I support President Obama’s effort to combat the Islamic State in Syria while at the same time supporting those in Syria trying to overthrow the brutal dictatorship of Bashar Assad.

“I oppose, at this point, a unilateral American no-fly zone in Syria which could get us more deeply involved in that horrible civil war and lead to a never-ending U.S. entanglement in that region.”

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-statement-on-syria/

I'm British; I voted for the Green Party this year, though I have voted Lib Dem and Labour before that. But I don't accuse any British leader of secretly supporting the Islamic State. I'm not a lunatic.

[betterdemsonly]

59. I don't support trying to overthrow Assad. No

Bernie is an improvement on Clinton and Obama because he will end the attempts to overthrow social democratic regimes like Venezuela. He was right when he said in the debates it is arrogant to assume we have a right to overthrow foreign governments when ever we feel like it. He punted on the Syria and that is sad. You aren't a lunatic but you are a meddler, a name caller, and still red baiting the antiwar movement.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. You're the one saying Obama supports mass murderers, and Sanders support Obama

in his policy in the Middle East. You're aren't 'the antiwar movement' - you're an extremist who claims Obama supports religious mass murderers. You needn't be 'red', as I said - a follower of Lyndon LaRouche does seem more like what you are - throwing ridiculous accusations around about the Democratic leadership.

What am I 'meddling' in? Are you saying no-one should be able to expose you as the extremist you are?

[betterdemsonly]

62. He does support Al Nusra in Syria for reasons that are mysterious

I am not an extremists for pointing out the truth. I am not a Larouche supporter, and never have been. You are just a neocon pretending to be a Dem. You voted for Bush and probaby will vote for Gop again if they nominate Christie, Bush or Rubio. You have friends in the leadership and don't want anyone pointing out the obvious truth that Clinton and Obama are supporting soft versions of McCain's policies, and aren't acting like democrats. You are also trying to purge anyone that points that out, because you want to hush up any antiwar resistance and marginalize it as extremism.

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. No, he does not support Al Nusra - you've made that up

They are regarded as terrorists:

All members of the ISSG also pledged as individual countries and supporters of various belligerents to take all possible steps to require adherence to the ceasefire by these groups or individuals they support, supply or influence. The ceasefire would not apply to offensive or defensive actions against Da’esh or Nusra or any other group the ISSG agrees to deem terrorist.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/11/249511.htm

You are lying, not "pointing out the truth".

"You voted for Bush". That's a lie too. As I said, I am British (ask a DUer). You can look at my posts on DU to find out my politics, just as we can look at yours, such as in this thread, to see you are lying about Obama and other Democratic leaders to make it look as if they support terrorism and mass murder, and are obviously no Democrat.

[chalmers]

17. ISIS is funded by the CIA

Using American weapons and equipment. This has been well established.

[Marrah_G]

20. Well established?

Could you point out where it has been well established?

[betterdemsonly]

21. Well the post up thread with the pbs news item

you have to be deaf dumb and blind. We are living in a very Orwellian world right now, mostly feuled by anonymous Astroturf, and arms merchant funded media.

Also you can see it in pro-government news stories from Cnn that we were fighting Assad and not Isis. Furthermore, we are fighting those fighting Isis like Russia.

[chalmers]

27. ISIS Shows Off Its American-Made M16 Rifles

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-shows-u-s-made-weapons-n419371

[Marrah_G]

32. Umm Isis obtained massive amounts of weapons from the Iraqi army

Much of the Iraqi army has folded pretty quickly, either being killed after betrayal by their superiors , fleeing or switching sides.

[TwilightGardener]

38. ISIS overran a warehouse full of American weaponry/supplies in December 2013 in Syria.

They were supposedly intended for the Free Syrian Army, but the commander fled to Qatar and the area was overrun, IIRC. So it wasn't all hapless fleeing Iraqis, we more directly supplied them via our anti-Assad activities in Syria, although unintentionally (hopefully).

[Throd]

25. To the 20% saying "yes", how much is President Obama in cahoots with ISIS?

And Hillary Clinton and John Kerry? Or are they just powerless to stop nefarious forces within the US government?

Our policy towards ISIS has been muddled at best over the past few years, but "cahoots" is absurd.

Feel free to reply with a bunch of links I won't bother to read.

[randys1]

28. This is how recruitment works. Convince people with little or no factual information

that their own government actually supports ISIS, and the rest is history.

[betterdemsonly]

45. That is a conspiracy theory in totality.

Like the one about somehow Assad collaborating with Isis, or that Corbyn supports terror when in fact Cameron is also someone who supported the Al Nusra and continues to.

[betterdemsonly]

44. I don't believe they are powerless

They are collaborating for reasons of personal profit, and shortsitedness.

The only escape from the bullshitter neocons is Sanders. They control both party establishments.

[Bradical79]

30. Not directly

I think there's probably some guilt by association with our political and business ties to Saudi Arabia though.

[Throd]

35. We need to seriously reexamine our relationship with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States.

We have used them as a bulwark against Iran/Syria/Russia for so long, but sometimes the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy.

[betterdemsonly]

46. We needed to seriously reexamine our parties relationship to wallstreet 8 years ago.

Didn't happen though, not with the party establishment in charge.

[arcane1]

31. I have no idea, but I would be sadly unsurprised if it were the case.

It wouldn't be the first time.

[hifiguy]

37. +1

No way to know but I'd bet ten bucks that the CIA is involved in some form of treachery inimical to the interests of all but the tenth-percenters.

[PATRICK]

57. Two clouds opn that horizon

One is the complexity of the US involvement in a complicated area and it is neither saintly, untainted or wise. Finding the other guys are also using American supplies gets annoying.

The other cloud is the politics behind kicking the US in the butt over there. And with Bush and Cheney still unjailed and a lot of business as usual going on, it was- and likely is- in the policy to constantly shift from using one sect against another as if we own the chess board. It seems like everyone there plays the game but we are not citizens of the Middle East. Resentment should actually be worse. I guess the gratitude era could be ending. As is our empire.

I am personally depressed by how little account is demanded by all the world's peoples of their leaders and especially the individuals who profit from getting us into these conflicts.

[betterdemsonly]

60. The dem leadership let Bush and Cheney off becuse most of them supported giving them a blank check

and still do. Hillary made it perfectly clear she is proud of the powers she gave the President when she voted for the IWR.

[Dems to Win]

58. Definitely in cahoots with ppl who are in cahoots with ISIS, the Saudis and Qataris and Turks

Hard to know what's really going on, but I can understand why the Iraqis are skeptical.