Middle East Running Iranian threat news and discussion thread

[Abhorsen]

For one you would have had no rebels to arm in the first place if Assad wasn't being a screwup for years before the civil war.

... So? We still decided to arm them. This isn't even an argument.

Mistake of US "nation builder" idealists. Should have guessed half the rebels are Islamists, and they are more ready for violence than "democratic opposition", so a night of long knives is inevitable, just as who will be holding the knives.

And so you admit that ISIS was the US's fault. When I blame the US, that includes actions of US 'nation builder' idealists.

Yet it wasn't conqquered, and ISIL was not doing well until it got into Syrian Civil War and took massive amounts of gear from Syrian military to snowball with.

A large swath of it was conquered.

No, i'm not a believer in ascribing fault to US in a situation which is a complicated web of conditions in which USA committed only few mistakes, and well after the situation was started by other actors. But that only works in the heads of people who have a pre-conceived notion of "blame America" which comes with ability to ascribe agency in any mess to America with the precision of a JDAM, no matter how complicated the situation and how many other actors contributed to it even before America got involved.

Our 'few' mistakes were dead obvious at that point: don't arm rebels in muslim countries, they are going to end up arming Islamists. And so we armed rebels, and empowered ISIS. You even admit this when you say:

Should have guessed half the rebels are Islamists, and they are more ready for violence than "democratic opposition", so a night of long knives is inevitable, just as who will be holding the knives.

Which goes back to my point:

We caused ISIS's rise. Denying this is frankly denying obvious history. Sure, we couldn't know that it would arm ISIS specifically, but we should well have known that all of the weapons we were providing were going to end up in Jihadi hands. We bear a fair bit of the blame here, similar to if you supplied a known arsonist with jerry cans full of gas.

 

[Marduk]

... So? We still decided to arm them. This isn't even an argument.

So the mess was already there before USA armed any rebels, and so through the logic of cause and effect USA couldn't have caused it.

And so you admit that ISIS was the US's fault. When I blame the US, that includes actions of US 'nation builder' idealists.

No i don't, don't stick your leftist theories in my mouth. ISIL is the fault of many Sunni factions in Islamic world coming together to organize it.

A large swath of it was conquered.

Long after Syrian Civil War started, ISIL got big on the civil war, and then shifted forces towards weak Iraq, at least get your timelines in some order before you start assigning blame.

Our 'few' mistakes were dead obvious at that point: don't arm rebels in muslim countries, they are going to end up arming Islamists. And so we armed rebels, and empowered ISIS. You even admit this when you say:

It was a mistake. But the civil war was already ongoing, which is why any rebels were supported, hence USA didn't start the civil war.

Which goes back to my point:

We caused ISIS's rise. Denying this is frankly denying obvious history. Sure, we couldn't know that it would arm ISIS specifically, but we should well have known that all of the weapons we were providing were going to end up in Jihadi hands. We bear a fair bit of the blame here, similar to if you supplied a known arsonist with jerry cans full of gas.

Contributed to with some mistakes, you could say that. But the idea that USA caused it? Pet theory of anti-western ideologues of all sorts, full of bullshit blame gymnastics.

History of the Islamic State - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1999 sounds quite a bit earlier than USA in Iraq...
Zarquawi started his jihadist career with Bin Laden as a friend, attempting to start his islamic state by overthrowing monarchy in Jordan and then going international, but then 9/11 happened, US interventions in ME happened, and so he took opportunities as he saw them.
But if history went differently, he still would have followed his plans in some variation or another, maybe more, maybe less successful, but taking away agency in actions of jihadist organizations away from said organizations to blame USA in roundabout way (well if they were perfect the jihadists wouldn't get any opportunities to succeed!) is ridiculous and usually done by anti-US political actors for obvious political reasons.

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Abhorsen]

Contributed to with some mistakes, you could say that. But the idea that USA caused it? Pet theory of anti-western ideologues of all sorts, full of bullshit blame gymnastics.

History of the Islamic State - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1999 sounds quite a bit earlier than USA in Iraq...

We caused ISIS's rise. Denying this is frankly denying obvious history. Sure, we couldn't know that it would arm ISIS specifically, but we should well have known that all of the weapons we were providing were going to end up in Jihadi hands. We bear a fair bit of the blame here, similar to if you supplied a known arsonist with jerry cans full of gas.

No one cared about ISIS prior to the Syrian civil war. We opened up a lane for them to gain a foothold and prominence by opposing Assad, we armed them (through gross negligence/reckless disregard for the obvious, not intentionally), and we gave them room to expand by wrecking Iraq.

Shocker, something bad happens when you purposely open up a massive power vacuum in a powderkeg, then pour in munitions. The rise of ISIS was the US's fault.

Now weapons we supplied in both Syria and in Afghanistan are going to be used against Israel. This is what blowback is.

 

[Marduk]

No one cared about ISIS prior to the Syrian civil war.

>no one
Certainly not you. But several governments and intel agencies did.

In late 2009, the commander of US forces in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, stated that ISI "has transformed significantly in the last two years. What once was dominated by foreign individuals has now become more and more dominated by Iraqi citizens".[36] On 18 April 2010, ISI's two top leaders, al-Masri and Omar al-Baghdadi, were killed in a joint US-Iraqi raid near Tikrit.[37] In a press conference in June 2010, General Odierno reported that 80% of ISI's top 42 leaders, including recruiters and financiers, had been killed or captured, with only eight remaining at large. He said that they had been cut off from al-Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan.[38][39][40]

Yup, Odinero certainly was talking about them before 2011 because of how much he didn't care. Please get some information about the whole very complicated conflict before you start making grand pronouncements of blame about it.

We opened up a lane for them to gain a foothold and prominence by opposing Assad,

LMAO, they were far from the only, and at first even biggest faction getting that. Assad opened a lane for many opposition groups to gain a foothold and prominence by being a shitty ruler in form of ba'athist socialist.

we armed them (through gross negligence/reckless disregard for the obvious, not intentionally), and we gave them room to expand by wrecking Iraq.

They expanded in Syria too quite well, it's no accident that they controlled territories close to the border in Iraq first, they had a lot of weapons looted from Syrian forces and various rebel groups they fought or absorbed.

Shocker, something bad happens when you purposely open up a massive power vacuum in a powderkeg, then pour in munitions. The rise of ISIS was the US's fault.

No it wasn't, repeating dumb leftist claims enough times doesn't make them true.

Now weapons we supplied in both Syria and in Afghanistan are going to be used against Israel. This is what blowback is.

US weapons are of little importance here, money and warm bodies are more important, anyone who has those gets weapons one way or another anyway. And everyone there had plenty.
Blowback is a pet magic word of leftists in arguing these matters, your use of it does the job of convincing me... in reverse.

 

[Husky_Khan]

The Islamic State of the Levant operating in the Syrian Civil War was formed out of the Nusra front which was backed by the Gulf States, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. There was discussion back then over Obama's dyslexic policy of denouncing Assad, saying he should be removed and putting him firmly in the anti-Assad camp but just letting the Arabs be in charge of supporting the anti-Assad forces who naturally favored Islamist fighters over the other grab bag of forces.

They merged with Al Qaeda in Iraq which certainly wasn't an ally or armed by the US. They were an ally of the Assad government in that Assad bought oil from them in exchange for cash and weapons because Islamic State was a useful force against the al Nusra Front and other Rebel groups which is who they primarily targeted.

It wasn't until 2014 that lethal aid was being sent to Syrian Rebel Groups, which was after the Islamic State invaded Iraq turning the insurgency there into a regional war again.

 

[Zachowon]

And ISIL got labeled as a Terror organization by the US in 04...and AQ, who they were apart of for awhile, was labeled as one in 99...

 

[Abhorsen]

>no one
Certainly not you. But several governments and intel agencies did.

"Ooh, he said something hyperbolic, let's nit pick"

Look: ISIS pre-civil war was just one of many small groups. Back then, they were not a huge goddamn problem they later became, with mass taking of sex slaves, mass murders, genocides, etc. Then US military aid comes into a region it's created a power vacuum in, and guess who sucks up the weapons and fills the vaccuum?

That's what I'm talking about. That's the US' fault.

It wasn't until 2014 that lethal aid was being sent to Syrian Rebel Groups, which was after the Islamic State invaded Iraq turning the insurgency there into a regional war again.

This isn't correct. Timber Sycamore began in late 2012 or early 2013. For just one example, anti tank weapons took 2 months to get from the factory, thru the CIA, to the rebels, to arms dealers, to ISIS.

ISIS expanded into Syria around 2013, and critically announced its merge (which Al Qaeda wasn't happy about) with the al-Nusra front of Al Qaeda in April 2013, and became the ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).

 

[Marduk]

"Ooh, he said something hyperbolic, let's nit pick"

Look: ISIS pre-civil war was just one of many small groups. Back then, they were not a huge goddamn problem they later became, with mass taking of sex slaves, mass murders, genocides, etc. Then US military aid comes into a region it's created a power vacuum in, and guess who sucks up the weapons and fills the vaccuum?

That's what I'm talking about. That's the US' fault.

They were absolutely a major terrorist group, they joined the Iraq furball since its beginning, ditto for Syria, they had plenty of weapons (don't know what's your fucking obsession with muh weapons but i assure you they had plenty if US commander in Iraq in 2009 was talking about them), they were already trying to take territory, just with less success, you are just fitting a bunch random factoids that certain media talked about a lot scraped from a massive story into a simple an ideologically convenient narrative while throwing out all the many parts that don't fit, and i will nitpick the shit out of that crap, because unlike you i oppose the ideology this narrative grows out of.

Besides the Syrian Civil War was in full swing before "US military aid", your attempt to put the blame on USA is very obvious in being politically driven, if you want to convince me otherwise, gimme numbers showing the dominant importance of that specific military aid, not narratives straight from assorted anti-western shills of Arab, Russian and leftist world.

 

[Abhorsen]

They were absolutely a major terrorist group, they joined the Iraq furball since its beginning, ditto for Syria, they had plenty of weapons (don't know what's your fucking obsession with muh weapons but i assure you they had plenty if US commander in Iraq in 2009 was talking about them), they were already trying to take territory, just with less success, you are just fitting a bunch random factoids that certain media talked about a lot scraped from a massive story into a simple an ideologically convenient narrative while throwing out all the many parts that don't fit, and i will nitpick the shit out of that crap, because unlike you i oppose the ideology this narrative grows out of.

... Again, I'm talking about them becoming a world wide threat, taking territory, etc.

Look, however you want to phrase it, they got a lot more powerful in 2013 through 2015. Guess what was happening then? The US was funneling military supplies into the region and gave them to rebels. We know ISIS got the weapons. We know that US support of anti Assad forces made Syria weaker and divided, which helped ISIL expand through it easily. We know that they only had a power base in Iraq originally because the US deposed Saddam, who, while a horrible person, also wasn't a Jihadi.

The US clearly created room for terrorists, gave them popular support by invading, gave them material support by being morons, and then:

Who woulda thunk that a bunch of the aid we gave ends up with ISIS or some other jihadis, besides, yunno, anyone with a brain?

Besides the Syrian Civil War was in full swing before "US military aid", your attempt to put the blame on USA is very obvious in being politically driven, if you want to convince me otherwise, gimme numbers showing the dominant importance of that specific military aid, not narratives straight from assorted anti-western shills of Arab, Russian and leftist world.

The Civil War was in full swing, but guess who wasn't there yet? ISIS. Guess who came only months after easy weapons started appearing? ISIS.

As for it being dominant, well, I pointed out other causes too, such as the invasion of Iraq. But yeah, a billion dollars of money going to give weapons to 'moderates'? It's not a shock where that ended up. We decided to try to depose a secular-ish dictator, and were surprised when islamists showed up to do so.

 

[Marduk]

... Again, I'm talking about them becoming a world wide threat, taking territory, etc.

They were a worldwide threat through terrorism much earlier. They tried taking territory in Iraq before SCW too.

Look, however you want to phrase it, they got a lot more powerful in 2013 through 2015. Guess what was happening then? The US was funneling military supplies into the region and gave them to rebels.

Not much compared to all other military supplies already in the war.

We know ISIS got the weapons.

Go and google random photos of ISIS fighters and captured weapons. What portion of the weapons is western?

We know that US support of anti Assad forces made Syria weaker and divided, which helped ISIL expand through it easily.

You could also argue that. But that's a far lower bar than being to blame for the rise of ISIL, nor would taking or abstaining from actions to make Assad stronger be something US government owed anyone, as Assad is very much not a US ally, never was.

We know that they only had a power base in Iraq originally because the US deposed Saddam, who, while a horrible person, also wasn't a Jihadi.

And earlier the guy who made it had a power base in Afghanistan, and earlier in Jordan and so on. Jihadis follow opportunities for starting something big, if its not one thing, they will go for someone else. Your logic follows in the direction that America is forced to be isolationist (mandatory fuck isolationist retardation), because wherever it intervenes in any mess in ME, even existing ones, jihadis will come too for their own reasons (they love a mess too), and then people like you will have a hot take that it's American's fault. Of course people like you also have no hot takes to give about jihadis being in Afghanistan before 9/11, Sudan, Egypt, Syria 1982, Jordan and so on, because your interest in the matter is limited to finding shit to whine at US foreign policy about.

The US clearly created room for terrorists, gave them popular support by invading, gave them material support by being morons, and then:

No, the room was always there, the jihadis were always there, just because USA got involved in the furball doesn't automatically make it so that US is the blame black hole, it only is in anti-western ideologue's heads.

Who woulda thunk that a bunch of the aid we gave ends up with ISIS or some other jihadis, besides, yunno, anyone with a brain?

Yeah, should have stuck to killing jihadis themselves, but we all know who would complain.

The Civil War was in full swing, but guess who wasn't there yet? ISIS. Guess who came only months after easy weapons started appearing? ISIS.

LMAO, more story element selection.

Timeline: the Rise, Spread, and Fall of the Islamic State

At its height, the Islamic State - also known as ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh - held about a third of Syria and 40 percent of Iraq. By December 2017 it had lost 95 percent of its territory, including its two biggest properties, Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, and the northern Syrian city of Raqqa...

www.wilsoncenter.org

July 2011: Abu Bakr al Baghdadi sends operatives to Syria. One of them, Abu Muhammad al Julani, becomes the leader of the Nusra Front in January 2012.
Involved literally from the beginning of the civil war, rather than waiting for the meme US weapons. But again, you are allergic to any facts about the war that are not useful for constructing a narrative to shit on le meme neocon warhawk warmongers.

As for it being dominant, well, I pointed out other causes too, such as the invasion of Iraq. But yeah, a billion dollars of money going to give weapons to 'moderates'? It's not a shock where that ended up. We decided to try to depose a secular-ish dictator, and were surprised when islamists showed up to do so.

No, invasion of Iraq wasn't the cause. Mismanagement of the situation after it was more of a cause. If obviously you are going to say USA shouldn't have invaded Iraq, we are going into butterflies territory, for all we know Saddam or his successor would be likely to get fucked by Arab Spring like his fellow Ba'athist Assad.
Also with all the news about the wars in Ukraine and Israel you should know that a billion in weapons in terms of large scale wars and countries is pennies.

 

[Abhorsen]

They were a worldwide threat through terrorism much earlier. They tried taking territory in Iraq before SCW too.

Jesus christ. Read what I'm writing. There was a point when ISIS got much more powerful (you might recognize this point because that's when they actually started calling themselves ISIS). Everyone who's treating this honestly knows about what I'm talking about. Your pretense that you don't is just childish at this point.

No, the room was always there, the jihadis were always there, just because USA got involved in the furball doesn't automatically make it so that US is the blame black hole, it only is in anti-western ideologue's heads.

It's not the only one to blame, but yeah, they get some of the blame. You are just as bad as the ones who assign US all of the blame if you think there's no blame.

July 2011: Abu Bakr al Baghdadi sends operatives to Syria. One of them, Abu Muhammad al Julani, becomes the leader of the Nusra Front in January 2012.
Involved literally from the beginning of the civil war, rather than waiting for the meme US weapons. But again, you are allergic to any facts about the war that are not useful for constructing a narrative to shit on le meme neocon warhawk warmongers.

Nusra Front wasn't ISIS then. ISIS wasn't ISIS then. They were ISI. From your source:
"Due to these successes, Baghdadi changed the name of his group from ISI to ISIS in April 2013."

No, invasion of Iraq wasn't the cause. Mismanagement of the situation after it was more of a cause. If obviously you are going to say USA shouldn't have invaded Iraq, we are going into butterflies territory, for all we know Saddam or his successor would be likely to get fucked by Arab Spring like his fellow Ba'athist Assad.
Also with all the news about the wars in Ukraine and Israel you should know that a billion in weapons in terms of large scale wars and countries is pennies.

That you think that good management was possible shows yet more problems with what you are doing. Of course the US was going to mismanage Iraq, there was no plan at the get go other than "WAH, he tried to kill my dad" and "We'll pretend there's nukes, call them WMDs, then when we find anything look like chemical weapons, claim success."

There was no plan for how to leave, or whether to leave. It was a dumb plan, that lead to Iran getting more powerful.

 

[Marduk]

Jesus christ. Read what I'm writing. There was a point when ISIS got much more powerful (you might recognize this point because that's when they actually started calling themselves ISIS). Everyone who's treating this honestly knows about what I'm talking about. Your pretense that you don't is just childish at this point.

No there wasn't such a point. There were trends, battles, politics, there is no numerical evidence for your pet theory of "USA sent muh weapons and suddenly ISIS became powerful", it's just a cool story for naive people with an axe to grind.
It is your political kaleidoscope play that is childish, sure, if you want to see it hard enough you will see it, but i don't give a shit, i don't have passionate political views that require me to see it, so of course i'm failing to do that.

It's not the only one to blame, but yeah, they get some of the blame. You are just as bad as the ones who assign US all of the blame if you think there's no blame.

The blame assigning game holds less importance to me than yesterday's dinner. This leftist pseudomoralizing shit is something i despise, i vehemently refuse to honor it.
Yet for some reason, you go to the meme level of stating that USA is to blame for it, rather than spreading the blame among something like a dozen countries while making statements about it.

Nusra Front wasn't ISIS then. ISIS wasn't ISIS then. They were ISI. From your source:
"Due to these successes, Baghdadi changed the name of his group from ISI to ISIS in April 2013."

What the fuck does the name have to do with power. It's like saying Facebook suddenly became a totally independent thing different from Facebook when Zuckerberg changed its name to Meta and so all the history of Facebook no longer applies to it, holy fuck, this is some clown world shit you are trying to get me to believe.

The point was that the guy in charge of Islamic State under whatever name at the time sent his loyal henchmen to gain influence in Syrian jihadi factions, which they did, which is what paved the way for their future successes, having people on the inside made it easy for ISIS to absorb, or failing that, defeat the infiltrated rebel groups and snowball at their expense.

Also 2013 is notably *before* US lethal aid to rebels, so there goes your pet theory again.

That you think that good management was possible shows yet more problems with what you are doing.

That you think this is not correct shows that you are thinking about this in the framework of American peacenik "war theory" dogma that i'm blaspheming against rather than the reality the rest of us live in.

Of course the US was going to mismanage Iraq, there was no plan at the get go other than "WAH, he tried to kill my dad" and "We'll pretend there's nukes, call them WMDs, then when we find anything look like chemical weapons, claim success."

Yeah, they should have killed a lot more of Saddam's security apparatus and probably be a lot more conservative with trying to push democracy on the place.
There was a plan, the problem is that it was a very naive plan, and there was no plan B, C and D. Then again, the worst of ISIS saga happened under Obama, so can't even blame Bush for the further mismanagement after his presidency.
Also historical irony in how well do these mistakes rhyme with Afghanistan withdrawal.

There was no plan for how to leave, or whether to leave. It was a dumb plan, that lead to Iran getting more powerful.

Screw leaving or plans to do so, that's an idiotic leftist pet peeve, there was no plan to get the place into a state worth leaving, it should not be left in that state, no need for bureaucratic "leave by X date no matter what" retardation, the problem was in a completely different direction.
Iran certainly is playing there a lot, but being more powerful, i would not go so far, considering how much of a war chest they are having to provide to have the influence they do in Iraq.
This isn't some isolated situation, Iran has its imperial ambitions, and redirects attention and resources wherever it sees an opportunity, so one could as well argue that it forced Iran to divert resources from Houthis and Hezbollah, who would be stronger otherwise.

 

[Abhorsen]

No there wasn't such a point. There were trends, battles, politics, there is no numerical evidence for your pet theory of "USA sent muh weapons and suddenly ISIS became powerful", it's just a cool story for naive people with an axe to grind.
It is your political kaleidoscope play that is childish, sure, if you want to see it hard enough you will see it, but i don't give a shit, i don't have passionate political views that require me to see it, so of course i'm failing to do that.

Man this is just pathetic. There literally was a point when they started calling themselves ISIL. They made an announcement about it and everything. So there clearly was "such a point."

Well prior to that point, the US had been funneling arms into the region, and they were ending up in what was soon to be called ISIL's (then the ISI's) hands. This isn't to do with political beliefs. This is simply watching cause and effect, something your in fact passionate political beliefs (look at your support for Ukraine, for one), apparently don't let you do.

The blame assigning game holds less importance to me than yesterday's dinner. This leftist pseudomoralizing shit is something i despise, i vehemently refuse to honor it.
Yet for some reason, you go to the meme level of stating that USA is to blame for it, rather than spreading the blame among something like a dozen countries while making statements about it.

And this is why you don't learn from history, and you keep thinking doing the same moronic thing over and over will work. Because you never look back and go: oh, that was a fuckup. This is why you assign blame, so you know where the fuckup lies.

What the fuck does the name have to do with power. It's like saying Facebook suddenly became a totally independent thing different from Facebook when Zuckerberg changed its name to Meta and so all the history of Facebook no longer applies to it, holy fuck, this is some clown world shit you are trying to get me to believe.

Man, it's almost like playing childish games and pretending you don't know what group (or time period) the other poster is obviously referring to is annoying. Huh, food for thought, I'll make sure not to do that in the future. I wonder where I got the idea from?

Also 2013 is notably *before* US lethal aid to rebels, so there goes your pet theory again.

So you aren't reading what I'm citing or even what I'm writing. Operation Timber Sycamore, which was giving lethal aid to rebels, began in late 2012, early 2013. This is the second time I've pointed this out. Honestly, if you won't read what I write, I think I'm done replying to a brick wall as well.

Iran certainly is playing there a lot, but being more powerful, i would not go so far, considering how much of a war chest they are having to provide to have the influence they do in Iraq.

Power is a relative thing, as the entirety of international power, unlike prosperity, is a zero sum game: the more power you have, the less of it there is for anyone else. The removal of Saddam thus empowered Iran, because it removed a regional threat to Iran.

Screw leaving or plans to do so, that's an idiotic leftist pet peeve, there was no plan to get the place into a state worth leaving, it should not be left in that state, no need for bureaucratic "leave by X date no matter what" retardation, the problem was in a completely different direction.

It's not a leftist pet peeve, it's basic strategy. It's asking: how do I win this war? What will make this a success? And they never thought of it. Obviously, staying their forever, unless we want Iraq as a new US territory, wasn't a valid success option. So leaving is necessarily a part of any victory condition.

For example, in Afghanistan, we should have declared victory and left once we killed Osama. More, we should have kept that as the goal: saying: we'll fuck you up until we get Osama (et al, there were obviously a few other major targets, but you get the idea), then we'll go. That's an achievable goal.


BTW, calling everything you don't like (or simply don't understand) leftist, is sad. That you instantly call me or my beliefs leftist because I push back on the forever wars of the US makes you about as deranged as the people who shout racist when statistics get brought up.

 

[Husky_Khan]

The Islamic State of the Levant operating in the Syrian Civil War was formed out of the Nusra front which was backed by the Gulf States, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. There was discussion back then over Obama's dyslexic policy of denouncing Assad, saying he should be removed and putting him firmly in the anti-Assad camp but just letting the Arabs be in charge of supporting the anti-Assad forces who naturally favored Islamist fighters over the other grab bag of forces.

They merged with Al Qaeda in Iraq which certainly wasn't an ally or armed by the US. They were an ally of the Assad government in that Assad bought oil from them in exchange for cash and weapons because Islamic State was a useful force against the al Nusra Front and other Rebel groups which is who they primarily targeted.

It wasn't until 2014 that lethal aid was being sent to Syrian Rebel Groups, which was after the Islamic State invaded Iraq turning the insurgency there into a regional war again.

This isn't correct. Timber Sycamore began in late 2012 or early 2013. For just one example, anti tank weapons took 2 months to get from the factory, thru the CIA, to the rebels, to arms dealers, to ISIS.

Your source just reinforces that it was Qatar and Saudi Arabia and Jordan leading on it.

The program's principal backers were the United States and Saudi Arabia, but it was also supported by some other regional Arab governments, and by the United Kingdom. While Saudi Arabia provides more money and weaponry, the United States leads training in military equipment. The program was based in Jordan, due to that country's proximity to the battlefields in Syria.

According to The New York Times, the program initially allowed US forces to train Syrian rebels in use of military equipment, but not to directly provide the equipment itself. A few months after its creation, it was amended to allow the CIA to both train and equip rebel forces. Saudi Arabia has provided military equipment, and covert financing of rebel forces has also been provided by Qatar, Turkey and Jordan.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey shipped thousands of rifles, hundreds of machine guns, and large amounts of ammunition to Syrian rebels in 2012 before the program's launch. The CIA helped arrange some of the arms purchases for the Saudis, including a large deal in Croatia in 2012. A classified US State Department cable signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reported that Saudi donors were a major support for Sunni militant forces globally, and some American officials worried that rebels being supported had ties to Al Qaeda.

Your original claim was this:

We literally armed rebels, and those arms just so happened to end up with ISIS. We got rid of Saddam, which left the country open to being conquered by ISIS. Us opposing Assad with military aid opened up a lane for ISIS. This isn't complicated to realize.

Your claim was that the US armed ISIS. It was Saudi Arabia and Qatar and other Arab countries (as well as Turkey and shit) that primarily armed the Rebel groups, including al-Nusra, that did so, just like I said. Nothing in your Wikipedia article states that US Arms were essential to ISIS' rise or Iraq's Conquest by ISIS (which also didn't happen but I'm assuming your just speaking hyperbole).

For just one example, anti tank weapons took 2 months to get from the factory, thru the CIA, to the rebels, to arms dealers, to ISIS.

That's only one example because that's the only singular example cited in the report by news sources that studied over forty thousand weapons reportedly. The weapon in question was a Bulgarian AT Weapon that was captured in Ramadi, Iraq by Iraqi Forces from the Islamic State in February of 2016. The timeframe being discussed here was 2012-early 2014 was it not?

There were a dozen weapons which may have had the US purchasing them of the forty thousand, and that includes everything from a machine gun, to a 40mm grenade to the aforementioned AT Launcher. Some of these weapons were purchased by the United States as early as 2003, and found in Iraq over ten years later. And none that I can see were provided in 2012- early 2014 specifically.

The same report still states that over 50% of the weapons have Chinese or Russian origins, and yes if you add Eastern Europe it accounts for over 90%. The report, like I said in my original post, states that it was Arab and neighboring countries that supplied Rebel groups and were buying them from Eastern European countries as one example the report cites is weapons bought from Bulgaria by Saudi Arabia to be sent to Rebel groups in Syria. So yes... maybe there is an exception of random weapons that the US had purchased... but it's such a small amount it certainly didn't change the game enough to allow the rise of ISIS.

Again I put the responsibility on Assad supporting the Islamic State early on, and Saudi and Qatari and Jordanian (but also apparently Turkey as well) funding other Islamist groups. The United States through the CIA supported them as Allies for better or worse, but was a junior partner in the whole affair. Obama probably wanted to avoid taking primary responsibility which made political sense.

You stated your claims that the US armed ISIS and allowed them to rise to "conquer Iraq" were self evident (ie "isn't complicated to realize") but have failed to illustrate how it's self evident. We both established that the Islamic State rose in 2012-2014 but it seems like the issue of US Arms being what allowed ISIS in that time period to arise it still apparently too complicated for me to realize still.

 

[Marduk]

Man this is just pathetic. There literally was a point when they started calling themselves ISIL. They made an announcement about it and everything.

And that's about the least important part of the story, their name change means jack shit in practical terms.

And this is why you don't learn from history, and you keep thinking doing the same moronic thing over and over will work. Because you never look back and go: oh, that was a fuckup. This is why you assign blame, so you know where the fuckup lies.

Navel gazing is the West's disease right now, and has jack shit to do with learning from history. It's blame assigning for pseudomoralizing purposes, and i despise it and the whole ideology it sprouts from.

Man, it's almost like playing childish games and pretending you don't know what group (or time period) the other poster is obviously referring to is annoying. Huh, food for thought, I'll make sure not to do that in the future. I wonder where I got the idea from?

No, it's not, it's literally you going even beyond your usual in crazy theories and deciding that ISIL's internal politics name change is indicative of a "mysterious" sudden power-up that's not real but you think it is. It's basically you building pet theories upon pet theories and calling people childish for not automatically taking them as reality.

So you aren't reading what I'm citing or even what I'm writing. Operation Timber Sycamore, which was giving lethal aid to rebels, began in late 2012, early 2013. This is the second time I've pointed this out. Honestly, if you won't read what I write, I think I'm done replying to a brick wall as well.

Timber Sycamore

Timber Sycamore was a classified weapons supply and training program run by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and supported by various Arab intelligence services, most notably that of Saudi Arabia. Launched in 2012 or 2013, it supplied money, weaponry and training to rebel...

military-history.fandom.com

Date	2012 – 2017

So, the operation was spread over fucking 5 years, yet your pet theory is that ISIL suddenly got powerful when a tiny fraction of the aid arrived, and asserting that right at the beginning of it ISIL suddenly got powerful. Please provide statistics showing the massive rise of western weapons in ISIL hands in 2013-2014.

Power is a relative thing, as the entirety of international power, unlike prosperity, is a zero sum game: the more power you have, the less of it there is for anyone else. The removal of Saddam thus empowered Iran, because it removed a regional threat to Iran.

Aren't you forgetting US literally wielding power in Iraq as its troops were there?
So no, it's not a two body system.

It's not a leftist pet peeve, it's basic strategy. It's asking: how do I win this war? What will make this a success? And they never thought of it. Obviously, staying their forever, unless we want Iraq as a new US territory, wasn't a valid success option. So leaving is necessarily a part of any victory condition.

Leaving is something a rational actor does after fulfilling the objectives. Announcing a specific date and plan for leaving while the timeline of achieving objectives is obviously impossible to predict lest one has access to an oracle, is the strategy of people like retarded, 5 year plan obsessed Soviet bureaucrats, and only serves to provide a great convenience for OPFOR planners. The how and when needs to be left up in the air until it becomes relevant.

For example, in Afghanistan, we should have declared victory and left once we killed Osama. More, we should have kept that as the goal: saying: we'll fuck you up until we get Osama (et al, there were obviously a few other major targets, but you get the idea), then we'll go. That's an achievable goal.

It was achievable, though it would just result in whatever happened now, except earlier. Whether that would be a good solution or not is a separate question. It's certainly not the only achievable route to take with Afghanistan at that point.
Declaring victory vs meeting actual objectives are separate, the former is more about saving face politically, the latter is about getting shit done.

BTW, calling everything you don't like (or simply don't understand) leftist, is sad. That you instantly call me or my beliefs leftist because I push back on the forever wars of the US makes you about as deranged as the people who shout racist when statistics get brought up.

Your specific beliefs about ME war related things, wherever one sees them professed on the internet, press or other media, almost always that comes from assorted leftist or allied to leftist sources like Assad simps and other weirdos like that.
There is no escaping the fact that the anti-war/peacenik movement in the West is a leftist aligned one, and so are its ideas, dogmas and memes, there is no distinction between those in such topics. Of course they are ridiculous regardless of who repeats them, and it's only more ridiculous when someone who doesn't even want to work in the interest of leftism does so.

This isn't correct. Timber Sycamore began in late 2012 or early 2013. For just one example, anti tank weapons took 2 months to get from the factory, thru the CIA, to the rebels, to arms dealers, to ISIS.

Again you get caught skipping inconvenient details to build a narrative you want.

Timber Sycamore

Timber Sycamore was a classified weapons supply and training program run by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and supported by various Arab intelligence services, most notably that of Saudi Arabia. Launched in 2012 or 2013, it supplied money, weaponry and training to rebel...

military-history.fandom.com

A 2017 study by Conflict Armament Research found that external support for anti-Assad Syrian rebels "significantly augmented the quantity and quality of weapons available to [ISIL] forces," including "anti-tank weapons purchased by the United States that ended up in possession of the Islamic State within two months of leaving the factory." However, the study found no instance in which U.S. arms supplied to the Kurdish– and Arab–led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to fight ISIL ended up in ISIL's arsenal.[24]

Read this carefully:
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Timber_Sycamore#Black_market
Basically Jordan, a US ally, got US weapons. Their spooks supported poorly vetted groups with US purchased weapons sent to Jordan, and then these groups sold the weapons on black market. Similar situations with other nominally US allied ME countries also happened. It was not the aid provided by CIA itself to Syrian rebels that ended up with ISIL.

 

[Husky_Khan]

So anyways... how about that Iran place?

 

[Abhorsen]

Your source just reinforces that it was Qatar and Saudi Arabia and Jordan leading on it.

It does note that the US specifically supplied weapons though.

Your claim was that the US armed ISIS. It was Saudi Arabia and Qatar and other Arab countries (as well as Turkey and shit) that primarily armed the Rebel groups, including al-Nusra, that did so, just like I said. Nothing in your Wikipedia article states that US Arms were essential to ISIS' rise or Iraq's Conquest by ISIS (which also didn't happen but I'm assuming your just speaking hyperbole).

Northern Iraq's conquest is what I'm referring to.

My claim was that the US armed ISIS. You claimed that Lethal aid began in 2014. I'm pointing out that the US gave lethal aid early to mid 2013, a few months after the program began.

From the source:

According to The New York Times, the program initially allowed US forces to train Syrian rebels in use of military equipment, but not to directly provide the equipment itself. A few months after its creation, it was amended to allow the CIA to both train and equip rebel forces.

Now a lot of that money came from the Saudis, but some of that was US money, and it was CIA training that made it effective (and I've questions about how many of those moderate groups stayed moderate).

That change, a few months after it began, means that the CIA directly gave rebel forces arms. This is US backing, something we shouldn't have done.

As for whether it lead to the rise of ISIS, I think it's not the only thing. But it's a fair part of it, and it's important to recognize that. The US was supplying 'moderate' rebels with arms just as ISIL got going. I think there's a fair reason to point fingers.


Basically, my reasoning is that it was a crime of opportunity. There was no great injustice to oppose, but instead there was suddenly a lot cheaper weapons and a lot more trained fighters. That's good opportunity for setting up an actual islamic state.



@Marduk, I'll just hit some of the lowlights here, where you again shove words in my mouth:

Aren't you forgetting US literally wielding power in Iraq as its troops were there?
So no, it's not a two body system.

I didn't say it was a two body system. I said that power is a zero sum game. Games in game theory can have more than two players. It's just that for a game to be zero sum, every possible move's effect on total power (I.e. if we summed all the power changes, positive and negative) would have to be zero.

So Iraq was one of the players that lost power, Iran was one of the players that gained power.

Leaving is something a rational actor does after fulfilling the objectives. Announcing a specific date and plan for leaving while the timeline of achieving objectives is obviously impossible to predict lest one has access to an oracle, is the strategy of people like retarded, 5 year plan obsessed Soviet bureaucrats, and only serves to provide a great convenience for OPFOR planners. The how and when needs to be left up in the air until it becomes relevant.

Huh, that's sounds like basic logic. Man, it'd be a shame if I didn't advocate for announcing a date and time for them to leave, right? Oh, wait, I didn't. Because that would be dumb.

I said:

There was no plan for how to leave, or whether to leave. It was a dumb plan, that lead to Iran getting more powerful.

There should be a plan to leave, a way to leave, or something about leaving. Basically situations on the ground that determine either if the jobs done, or if the jobs impossible and to get out while you can, cause it isn't getting better.

Note the complete lack of a call for a time frame to leave in.

So anyways... how about that Iran place?

Fair point. Let's try to tie this back in. US' deposing of Saddam strengthened Iran. We can see this based on how far they now project power. Now Syria and Iraq are allies of Iran, whereas previously Iran was preoccupied dealing with Saddam. Iran is now concerned with fucking around with Israel instead of screwing over Iraq.

 

[Marduk]

I didn't say it was a two body system. I said that power is a zero sum game. Games in game theory can have more than two players. It's just that for a game to be zero sum, every possible move's effect on total power (I.e. if we summed all the power changes, positive and negative) would have to be zero.

So Iraq was one of the players that lost power, Iran was one of the players that gained power.

And as i said, that doesn't automatically mean Iran gained power. Could be that USA gained that power instead, Iran even may have lost power due to being distracted with countering US presence in Iraq.

Huh, that's sounds like basic logic. Man, it'd be a shame if I didn't advocate for announcing a date and time for them to leave, right? Oh, wait, I didn't. Because that would be dumb.

Even if not announced, establishing a future date to follow is not practical.

I said:

There should be a plan to leave, a way to leave, or something about leaving. Basically situations on the ground that determine either if the jobs done, or if the jobs impossible and to get out while you can, cause it isn't getting better.

Note the complete lack of a call for a time frame to leave in.

The plan to leave should take into account the specific situation in which one is leaving and its circumstances, which are impossible to know in more than few months at best before the decision to leave is made. Either way, it is impractical to make such plans public, and you know where that puts people who demand to know these plans.

Fair point. Let's try to tie this back in. US' deposing of Saddam strengthened Iran.

Again, did it really? Is it one of the things i'm supposed to just nod along to?

We can see this based on how far they now project power.

No, that's plain random ass assertion, Iran's power projection is a direct effect of the investments Iran has put in its long relationship with Syria and Hezbollah, going much further into the past than post 9/11 wars.

Iran–Syria relations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What is Hezbollah? A look at the Lebanese armed group backing Hamas

Hezbollah has described the deadly Hamas attack as ‘a decisive response to Israel’s continued occupation’.

www.aljazeera.com

Now Syria and Iraq are allies of Iran, whereas previously Iran was preoccupied dealing with Saddam. Iran is now concerned with fucking around with Israel instead of screwing over Iraq.

If by "now" you mean "the 80's", yeah. More super-convenient skipping of ME geopolitical facts to fit political theories. Syria was an ally of Iran in the Iran-Iraq war already, why don't you know that and imply it only happened in aftermath of 2003 Iraq war.

One of the first major fronts of the Iran–Syria alliance was Iraq. During the Iran–Iraq War, Syria sided with non-Arab Iran against Iraq and was isolated by Saudi Arabia and some of the Arab countries, with the exceptions of Libya, Lebanon, Algeria, Sudan and Oman.[2] As one of Iran's few Arab allies during the war, Syria shut down an Iraqi oil pipeline (Kirkuk–Baniyas pipeline) to deprive the Iraqis of revenue. Syria also trained Iranians in missile technology and provided Iran with Scud B missiles between 1986 and 1988.[15] In return for Syria's war support, Iran provided Syria with millions of free and discounted barrels of oil throughout the 1980s. In addition, Khomeini was restrained in his condemnation of the 1982 Hama massacre.[11]

As for Iraq being an ally of Iran... Iran is sure trying, but trying is not success.
I would say Iraq is contested between Iran and Saudi/US influence.

 

[Zachowon]

One, ISIL, HEZBOLLAH, HAMAS, and AQ have been enemies of the US from 97, 99 and 04. Look up the US FTO, Foreign Terror Organization called by the US.

Iraq is an ally of Iran in the same sense Syria has full control over thier country.
The hundreds of Iraqi milita groups are supported by Iran.
The Iraqi government is US backed and is basically staying as long as coalition forces stay because they will not be able to kick out the US

 

[Husky_Khan]

Perun did a video on Iran's military power, strategy and capabilities, something similar to what he did with Israel just last week.



Haven't watched it yet myself so not many details from me on what's innit. But it is usually good times watching these Perun vids.