Incompetency, in underestimating the Shiite/Sunni antagonism, starting with Bush, and culminating in a huge crescendo under Mr. 0 and Hillary...
All the rest of the Islamic that follow are useful idiots and the biggest idiots are those in the West who fall for the line that Islam is a religion.
This is interesting, Guardian’s take:
“Principally, Isis is the product of a genocide that continued unabated as the world stood back and watched. It is the illegitimate child born of pure hate and pure fear – the result of 200,000 murdered Syrians and of millions more displaced and divorced from their hopes and dreams. Isis’s rise is also a reminder of how Bashar al-Assad’s Machiavellian embrace of al-Qaida would come back to haunt him.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/22/syria-iraq-incubators-isis-jihad
So Ali Khedery says differently.
Hard to judge altogether but if Assad had not been blowing up scores of his own people, ISIS might not be so potent as well.
Dictatorships, as has been often noticed, are usually oligarchies of a wealthy elite with a kind of figurehead dictator. ISIS is the Iraqi Baathist oligarchy’s revenge....
Ha haaaaa! Karma sucks, don't it, Abu?
I mean after all, Saddam's officers are leaders of ISIS. ISIS was spawned by Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was created by Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden ordered the attacks on 9/11.
So, the “hidden hand” is Saddam’s. He’s giving orders from the grave.
I agree with my husband, who at the onset of the Iraq war said that we should have taken out Saudi Arabia and Iran, then Iraq would’ve bowed it’s knees. Instead, we have a ME that is in total chaos. Although, one cannot lose sight of the fact, that in God’s perspective and timeline, we are closing out the ‘age of grace’ rapidly and entering into the birth pangs that will bring the day of Jacob’s Trouble...Daniel’s 70th week onto the scene. With the rapidity of current events taking place today, it is impossible to set a time line, but anyone with a mediocre view of the Bible can see that things are quickly moving to those events foretold by many OT writers and a few NT writers, as well. It behooves believers to get back to the Bible and start preparing for that day. I know most believe we will be raptured out before, but I am not one of those, having been cured of that back in the 1980s. Nothing has happened that would make me go back to that belief. Anyway, it is time to prepare for the worst. And, if it happens like you want it to, then I would not object. however, I want to be prepared to go through the coming storm, and God will be faithful to those who prepare, as the parable of the 10 virgins says.
To my thinking, it will not be long before we see a “strong man” take charge of things in the ME, as things are falling into chaos more every day. The antichrist is waiting in the wings, as they say. He is already on the scene, I’m certain, but he has not made a move to come to power yet. He is biding his time.
One would have to believe, for example, that Assad's Ba'athists (which is to say "Nazis," because all the Ba'athists are immediate and direct descendants of Adolf Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) are probably in league with IS, which, arguably, makes the ground war between the Assad regime and the "IS," in the latter's homebase are (at Al Raqqah, in Syria) what the Russians call "спектакль," (mere spectacle) a mere theatrical performance.
The wicked fire-fight between the Assad regime and IS, over the Taqba AFB, strategic to IS control over its nominal capital at Al Raqqah, is theater?
Not beyond belief, not beyond practical for fascists to cynically use the True Believing among their foreign followers to confuse the West, but would Assad risk his fixed assets, his troops, that way?
Like I say... there are significant problems with this, not least among them is the source and timing of the story. The
Post is a long-running sounding board for the Agency, and for Foggy Bottom. This story appears to back our own Ba'athists "runnin' things" here, in the US, those who want to distract attention from the smoking gun with regard to Benghazi, just now, and to back the narrative that pretends the "hot mess" in Iraq today is the fault of Bush and not the policy of abandonment pushed since 2009.
Bush is responsible for ISIS gaining power in the same way that Eisenhower was responsible for us losing World War II - oh, except we didn’t lose World War II.
My point is this. Mistakes are made in war. Many people believe that the great casualties that resulted from The Battle of The Bulge could have been avoided if a different strategy had been tried. Patton had an alternative plan to Eisenhower’s, that would have had our troops outflanking the main German resistance and starving it out. This likely would have given us a less costly victory. Nevertheless, we ultimately prevailed - mistakes and all. That’s what great nations do.
Likewise, if the Bush administration had dealt with the ex-Baathists more wisely, it would have likely made our victory there less costly. But we still won. That’s what great nations do.
Imagine if Patton, to prove a point that his strategy was better than Eisenhower’s, deliberately undermined the war effort from that point on. Maybe then, we would have lost the war, and Patton could have petulantly blamed the loss on Eisenhower not taking his advice. But that’s not what great men do. But that’s what America hating commies like Obama and the Democrat Party do. They have deliberately given away the victory so dearly fought for, to try to “prove” that it never happened.
Sure, mistakes were made in the Iraq war, but the bottom line is, we won. These ex-Baathists never would have been able to reorganize and become what they have become, without an Obama to help them.
Bump for reference.
But were does the money come from? Not Iraq.
The House of Saaud.
The only buffer between the poor Shiites in Iraq and Iran is AND SAUDI ARABIA IS........HOLD ON ITS ALMOST HERE............ISIS.
Remember what GWB provided to Obambi and the world. On one side of Iran is Iraq. On the other side is Afghanistan. We had Iran between Iraq and Afghanistan. Covertly and overtly we could have empowered the 2009 Iranian revolution and reversed the peanut farmer’s treasonous support of the Islamonazis in 1979.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
moderate muslims = “Cafeteria Catholics”. The more devout the are, the more dangerous they become.
Not surprised. Nazism is like the energizer bunny.
The issue of de baathification of the military was always a a double-sided argument.
It is not difficult for the overwhelmingly Sunni Iraqi military officers to point to de baathification as “the heart of the problem” NOW.
And yet, if the U.S. had NOT agreed to de baathification, the Shia majority and all their militias (and they do represent some 60% of the Iraqi people) were prepared to be quit of their cooperation with the U.S., and that was when the U.S. was still fighting in Iraq on three fronts - against Al Queda, against the remnants of the former Iraqi military still hoping to resurrect Saddam’s regime, and against the sectarian militias fighting the U.S. and each other.
Without de baathification of the military it cannot be said for certain we would have produced a democratic government of any kind - the Shia leadership would not have supported it. Then what? No one knows.
So yes we know one of the risks we took with de baathification, but we do not know where we would have gotten to without it either.
The worst part of de baathification was also carried out in two ways that were sought by the Shia political class; too quickly, and with too much regard for rank (high) as qalifying for dismissal and too little regard for behavior. Maliki then made things worse as prime minister, by making military appointments by choosing cronies over experience.