I'll call them by their original call letters, ISIS, even though they tend to go by ISIL more nowadays.
This groups is sweeping across Iraq and threatens adjoining countries, using terror tactics that would have made Nazi storm troopers blush. They force conversion with threats of torture and death.Committing war crimes they joyfully document in videos (NSFW or weak stomachs) they gleefully distribute via the Internet. Just google on "isis executions" in google video if you think you can stand to watch.
They arm themselves both with captured weapons (usually high-quality American made weapons) and they purchase more weapons with money obtained by raiding currency and gold and other valuables stolen from banks in their conquered territories.
Should the US stand by and watch ISIS sweep across the Middle East and possibly even Europe, or is it time to nip this thing in the bud before it reaches Madrid, Paris, Rome, London, and the White House?
Should Obama let the chips fall where they may? or should he put American boots on the ground? or did he wait too long?
What will be the price if we go down the road of isolationism?
ah the usual response i get… :/
google it and you get a number of sources some crazy and some just focusing on the facts , even it was mentioned several times on RT News Channel… tally up your results analyse them and derive a personal conclusion from sense and logic… it goes way back when Muslims were rounded up to fight for "religious freedom" against Russia/communism by CIA.
Oh, if the Russian "free" press wrote it, it must be true.
What is a good google search term? I had no success.
"Another source of inspiration was the Iranian coup that toppled the Shah, and installed a hard-line religious government instead. You can hardly lay this at the door of the CIA."
Actually IIRC that one does belong to the CIA.
She is probably saying that the toppling of the Shah was a reaction to and result of his CIA support.
IIRC that is what happened. The CIA train and equipped the Shah's secret police after the US installed the Shah as the leader of Iran. The Shah was "our guy" the "coup" was funded by the US, the following torture of his own people resulted in a revolution, this is one of the main reasons that Iran hates the west so much.
Nicaragua is much the same story, our government has been meddling in the affairs of other nation/states for a very long time.
Presently our War On Drugs has turned our southern neighbor into a war zone not to mention the immigration problem, our elected officials feed at
the troth of the Military Industrial Complex.
The rich get richer while Rome Burns.
These are cases where perception (or rumor) may be more important than reality.
Are you really countering Foreign Affairs with The Guardian (of Islam)...? Read the FA article, it is a lot more informative and thorough than what The Guardian has mashed together to confirm their preconceived narrative.
Pretty much the money snip:
As for Kermit Roosevelt, he gets a short shrift:
Chief among these [self-serving narratives concocted by Americans and Iranians alike] the version that appears in Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizing 1979 book, Countercoup: The Struggle for the Control of Iran. In his Orientalist rendition, Roosevelt landed in Tehran with a few bags of cash and easily manipulated the benighted Iranians into carrying out Washington’s schemes.
Contrary to Roosevelt’s account, the documentary record reveals that the Eisenhower administration was hardly in control and was in fact surprised by the way events played out. On the eve of the shah’s triumph, Henderson reported in a cable to Washington that the real cause of the coup’s success was that “most armed forces and great numbers [of] Iranian civilians [are] inherently loyal to [the] Shah whom they have been taught to believe is [a] symbol of national unity as well as of [the] stability of the country.” As Iran underwent its titanic internal struggle, even the CIA seemed to be aware that its own machinations had proved relatively unimportant. On August 21, Charles Cabell, the agency’s acting director, reported to Eisenhower that “an unexpectedly strong upsurge of popular and military reaction to Prime Minister Mosaddeq’s Government has resulted, according to late dispatches from Tehran, in the virtual occupation of that city by forces proclaiming their loyalty to the Shah and his appointed Prime Minister Zahedi.”
Sorry for the WoT.
No, I don't agree-the coup in Chile where Allende was murdered-which ironically occurred on 9/11, btw.
We train people at what used to be called the "School of the Americas" to, basically, thwart Socialism, or anything that smacks of a people's revolution, in South America.
The CIA trained Bin Laden and funded the Taliban, which would have been broke as a church mouse without us, and lost the war between Afghanistan and the Soviet Union.
We funded Sadam Hussein before we decided he was our enemy.
I think they have their hand in some pretty big cookie jars, actually.