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?

Tags: crimes, isil, isis, war, weapons

Views: 1084

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.

It is your claim, so I think you should back it up, rather than leaving it to me to stumble over a credible source out of the mass of dross on the subject. You say that there are sources based on 'fact', perhaps you could point me to one of those?

The fact that the entire Muslim awakening was triggered - in part - by the Cold War efforts against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan is well known. There is no doubt that the massive aid given to extremist Muslims during that period gave the Muslims the training and inspiration to use it against other enemies. This was exacerbated by the Russian war against Chechnya. 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.

But the Taliban was the creation of the Pakistani military Intelligence, and the funding of extremists all over the world has come largely from Western allies such as the Saudis (though in their case, probably mostly private funding rather than government funding, in contrast to Qatar where the ruling family is funding extremists in Mali, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria, as far as I understand it).

It is simply not good enough to claim that the CIA, i.e. the U.S. government, did all this because of the Cold War, although their policy at the time was shortsighted, and narrowly focused on the USSR.

"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.

So you think that the CIA planned a coup that toppled the major U.S. ally in the area? Why on Earth would they do that? It is generally regarded as a major intelligence disaster for the CIA that they did not see this coup coming. Perhaps you are confusing this with the CIA involvement in the 1953 coup against the democratically elected government that brought the Shah to the power?

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.

And other wealthy special interest groups.

The rich get richer while Rome Burns.

Actually, not really. Same goes for Chile

Indeed, the CIA is hardly the omnipotent manipulator of world events that conspiracy theories wants it to be. It is generally quite impotent, if not incompetent. 

These are cases where perception (or rumor) may be more important than reality.

CIA's role Right back atcha. :D

"The documents, published on the archive's website under freedom of information laws, describe in detail how the US – with British help – engineered the coup, codenamed TPAJAX by the CIA and Operation Boot by Britain's MI6."

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.

Lastly:

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.

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service