Daesh, Part IV

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

We're well over 400 in the existing thread. Just thought I'd get the title under my belt.

Saw an article indicating that Turkey is refusing to put boots on the ground without help from elsewhere.

[Ghjhero]

Their level of bold refusal is sickening!

[Mr Fixit]

Why exactly would they confront ISIS when they're the ones that trained, armed, and supplied them for years together with other US allies in the region?

[Suttree]

Nice op-ed in the NY Times today.

Yet there is a real lack of sophistication on both sides of the argument when it comes to discussing religion and violence.

On one hand, people of faith are far too eager to distance themselves from extremists in their community, often denying that religious violence has any religious motivation whatsoever. This is especially true of Muslims, who often glibly dismiss those who commit acts of terror in the name of Islam as “not really Muslim.”

On the other, critics of religion tend to exhibit an inability to understand religion outside of its absolutist connotations. They scour holy texts for bits of savagery and point to extreme examples of religious bigotry, of which there are too many, to generalize about the causes of oppression throughout the world.

What both the believers and the critics often miss is that religion is often far more a matter of identity than it is a matter of beliefs and practices. The phrase “I am a Muslim,” “I am a Christian,” “I am a Jew” and the like is, often, not so much a description of what a person believes or what rituals he or she follows, as a simple statement of identity, of how the speaker views her or his place in the world.

As a form of identity, religion is inextricable from all the other factors that make up a person’s self-understanding, like culture, ethnicity, nationality, gender and sexual orientation. What a member of a suburban megachurch in Texas calls Christianity may be radically different from what an impoverished coffee picker in the hills of Guatemala calls Christianity. The cultural practices of a Saudi Muslim, when it comes to the role of women in society, are largely irrelevant to a Muslim in a more secular society like Turkey or Indonesia. The differences between Tibetan Buddhists living in exile in India and militant Buddhist monks persecuting the Muslim minority known as the Rohingya, in neighboring Myanmar, has everything to do with the political cultures of those countries and almost nothing to do with Buddhism itself.

No religion exists in a vacuum. On the contrary, every faith is rooted in the soil in which it is planted. It is a fallacy to believe that people of faith derive their values primarily from their Scriptures. The opposite is true. People of faith insert their values into their Scriptures, reading them through the lens of their own cultural, ethnic, nationalistic and even political perspectives.

[snake]

I've heard that Turkey is not committing until the US commits to getting rid of Assad.

And I can understand Turkey's apprehension. No one really wants to get involved in a ground war in Syria. Be long and messy.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Fuck Turkey.

Not wanting to stick their neck out I can understand. But their insistence on regime change in Syria will do nothing but help ISIS and fuck up regional cooperation

[Dicer]

Nice op-ed in the NY Times today.

And the point is?

@ Dicer

That's all good and well, and I accept this could be the perspective of many Arabs, but ultimately it's also irrelevant. What's really driving the rise of Islamic medieval literalism? You hear the same words repeated over and over, humiliation, shame, anger.

The MENA countries have a population of some 250 mil which will near double in the next 40 years. A country like Egypt, for example, can produce enough food at present to just about feed a third to half it's population. There is no industry to speak off. Subtract the oil from GDP and the entire region would have an economy the size of Belgium. Young men can't get work, they can't save money which means no dowry and no marriage, and of course no sex. They see the rest of the world, even countries that were once far more backward than their own, race past them on every developmental index. We're discussing what are in effect failed states. So given all that the appeal to the mythical Caliphate brought about by the purifying hand of religious violence is obvious.

I hear over and over how the chaos is the fault of outside actors, the Israelis, Americans, Russians etc etc. In truth this is mostly an internally driven event(s). The influence the rest of the world has on it's outcome, short of launching total war, will remain pretty limited IMO.

@ Daskool

I am not sure how you can separate the current conflict from outside actors like the Israelis, Americans, Russians etc. when we know for a fact that they are responsible for what’s happening now. The Iraq war displaced the Sunnis and Saddam supporters there who have joined ISIS and the Syrian civil war which the Americans and the Saudis funded and supported has led to ISIS.

I am curious to know what you think are the reasons for Egypt and most of the MENA countries being failed states? You think Western imperialism and continued aggression in the region and support for dictators have nothing to do with it?

This article explains the link between ISIS and Saudi Wahhabism:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html

In the collaborative management of the region by the Saudis and the West in pursuit of the many western projects (countering socialism, Ba'athism, Nasserism, Soviet and Iranian influence), western politicians have highlighted their chosen reading of Saudi Arabia (wealth, modernization and influence), but they chose to ignore the Wahhabist impulse.

After all, the more radical Islamist movements were perceived by Western intelligence services as being more effective in toppling the USSR in Afghanistan -- and in combatting out-of-favor Middle Eastern leaders and states.

Why should we be surprised then, that from Prince Bandar's Saudi-Western mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad should have emerged a neo-Ikhwan type of violent, fear-inducing vanguard movement: ISIS? And why should we be surprised -- knowing a little about Wahhabism -- that "moderate" insurgents in Syria would become rarer than a mythical unicorn? Why should we have imagined that radical Wahhabism would create moderates? Or why could we imagine that a doctrine of "One leader, One authority, One mosque: submit to it, or be killed" could ever ultimately lead to moderation or tolerance?

Or, perhaps, we never imagined.

[Wouter]

I am not sure how you can separate the current conflict from outside actors like the Israelis, Americans, Russians etc. when we know for a fact that they are responsible for what’s happening now. The Iraq war displaced the Sunnis and Saddam supporters there who have joined ISIS and the Syrian civil war which the Americans and the Saudis funded and supported has led to ISIS.

This is exactly what I mean with lack of self-criticism: "we know for a fact they are responsible". So, in other words, it's not the fault of Arabs or of Iran. No, it has to be Israel and/or the US, the little and the big Satan, that must be responsible (it's even an objective fact now!).

ISIS is made up, in large parts, of Arab youth from the west (after having been brainwashed by Wahhabist propaganda, originating from and funded by Gulf Arabs). For the rest, they recruit mostly from the pool of international "professional" jihadi's that are available from places like Chechnya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt,...

There are few Syrians among them, and those Iraqis that support them do so out of fear or because Al-Maliki (who is an Arab and a puppet from Iran rather then the US) drove them to it with his Sunni-hostile policies and the general corruption of his regime.

Russia is only responsible to the extent that they like to make money and to be powerful by selling lots of weapons and ammo to Syria. Israel has little influence in Syria, with any side, and has barely been involved (I guess that one Su-24 shot down years into the conflict makes Israel responsible for every single death in the Syrian civil war!).

The US barely gave any weapons to the insurgents (Obama did not want to enter yet another long war and feared sophisticated weapons would be turned against the US, much like ISIS is doing now with material from the Iraqi army) and still declined to intervene even after Obama's "red line" for use of chemical weapons was breached.

Ironically, I have visited forums where many participants, including Arabs, hold the US responsible for the current mess because they didn't deliver (enough) weapons nor intervened themselves, while here the US got blamed exactly because it would have supplied weapons and/or funding. A look at the weapons used in Syria (overwhelmingly Russian or Chinese stuff), then it is clear that the US did not deliver weapons until recently TOW anti-tank weapons started to appear with selected rebel formations.

If we look at Libya, we see that the effect of western intervention in such conflicts is the same as when there is no intervention: the hardline Islamists take power, either way. Which suggests the fault is not in Western (non)intervention; the region is simply ripe for this kind of result.

Who is to blame for the Syrian civil war? Well, what about Assad using his riot police, then army and torturers against peaceful demonstrations? What about Iran sending first Hezbollah and later parts of its own forces, as well as scores of volunteers (actions that reminds one of how Russia operates in East-Ukraine)? What about Saudi-Arabia, Qatar and Turkey deciding to give the most dangerous weapons to the most Islamist groups available (even though other rebel groups aren't exactly un-islamic themselves)?

I don't see the hand of Israel nor the US in that.

Edit: an interesting opinion piece about the birth of ISIS here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4579266,00.html

@Iceman in the north:

I'm not sure where you get this. I've seen plenty of protests against daesh these past few months. In Turkey there have been quite a few fatalities in violent protests these past days against daesh and the Turlish government who are accused of supporting them.

Turkey is not Arabic, and there have been counter demonstrators who are pro-ISIS, too. Anyway, I "get this" from looking at the many mass-demonstrations against Israel in my own country, with lots of Arabs participating, and then looking at the small-scale demonstrations against ISIS - organised by Kurds and by Christian Turks.

When a local politician asked Arabs/muslims to denounce ISIS, a number of months ago, he was denounced as a racist and no condemnation of ISIS came forth. Not until recently, when ISIS really started hitting the western news and some backlash against islam in general started to be felt did they feel the need to distance themselves. And when they did distance themselves, it was with the fully expected "ISIS has nothing to do with Islam" (gee whiz, the Caliphate has nothing to do with Islam, everything for sure will be buying that). On the other hand, a call for boycots or protests against Israel never lacks enthusiasm.

In neighbouring countries like the Netherlands and Germany, there even have been counter demonstrations by Daesh sympatisers when Kurds went out to protest ISIS.

[Suttree]

And the point is?

Did you just enter this discussion last week or have you already forgotten posts from those idiots claiming Islam is evil.

[Marcus Agrippa]

Fuck Turkey.

Not wanting to stick their neck out I can understand. But their insistence on regime change in Syria will do nothing but help ISIS and fuck up regional cooperation

Yeah, pretty much. I don't like a lot of nations. Well all nations. Tribalism is a massive failure of the human species and is generally ineffective. I will say however that the Turks I met have just been the worst type of people.

Nice op-ed in the NY Times today.

Eh, I am not a fan of Atheism, Monotheism, Polytheism, Spiritualism, or Deism. The article just proves my point its just all tribalism anyway.

Back to the topic at hand- they are closing in on Baghdad- anybody in the military or anybody know whats happening over there? could they actually take the city? I mean it's not like the Iraqi army has been able to stop them.

[Darzin]

Back to the topic at hand- they are closing in on Baghdad- anybody in the military or anybody know whats happening over there? could they actually take the city? I mean it's not like the Iraqi army has been able to stop them.

I doubt it, the Iraqi army hasn't been able to resist them in Sunni areas but I think defending a majority Shia city they will show more backbone, also on paper at least the Iraqi army should be able to mop the floor with ISIS as its something like 400,000 vs 30,000. But they haven't so far, still I don't think they will collapse and abandone Baghdad.

[Dicer]

Did you just enter this discussion last week or have you already forgotten posts from those idiots claiming Islam is evil.

Any fool would know that ISIS is not Islam, especially since we have been talking about Wahhabism in this thread and it's the muslims who are actually fighting ISIS and Al-Nusra on the streets and the muslims who are most affected by what's happening in the region. I don't need Reza Aslan to tell me that Islam is not evil. Islamophobes like Maher and Harris don't need any more attention for their vile nonsense. As an atheist, I am not a fan of Aslan (Who for some reason keeps upholding Indonesia as a secular paradise where 'women have 100% rights' when that's not true) but Maher and Harris give atheism a bad name.

This is exactly what I mean with lack of self-criticism: "we know for a fact they are responsible". So, in other words, it's not the fault of Arabs or of Iran. No, it has to be Israel and/or the US, the little and the big Satan, that must be responsible (it's even an objective fact now!).

There’s more than enough evidence out there to show that the Saudi/US/Israeli/Turkish/Qatar alliance had a hand in creating the monster that is ISIS.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection?currentPage=all

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html

Assad and Iran did not create ISIS. Their enemies did. And their enemies are the Saudis, Israelis and Turks.

And where did I say it’s not the fault of the Arabs? You don’t see me criticizing Saudi Arabia on here regularly? They are the number one sponsor of extremist Islam and terrorism around the world.

ISIS is made up, in large parts, of Arab youth from the west (after having been brainwashed by Wahhabist propaganda, originating from and funded by Gulf Arabs). For the rest, they recruit mostly from the pool of international "professional" jihadi's that are available from places like Chechnya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt,...

I don’t think I have said otherwise.

There are few Syrians among them, and those Iraqis that support them do so out of fear or because Al-Maliki (who is an Arab and a puppet from Iran rather then the US) drove them to it with his Sunni-hostile policies and the general corruption of his regime.

You do know that both during and after the American invasion of Iraq, there has been continued civil wars and insurgency there by different groups?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency_(2003–11)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Iraq_(2006–07)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_in_Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_in_Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_in_Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_in_Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency_(2011–present)

From the time the US invaded Iraq, there has never been stability there. Thousands of Iraqis were dying every year. The support of the West for Syrian fighters also did not help:

Western powers and their regional allies have largely escaped criticism for their role in reigniting the war in Iraq. Publicly and privately, they have blamed the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for persecuting and marginalising the Sunni minority, so provoking them into supporting the Isis-led revolt. There is much truth in this, but it is by no means the whole story. Maliki did enough to enrage the Sunni, partly because he wanted to frighten Shia voters into supporting him in the 30 April election by claiming to be the Shia community's protector against Sunni counter-revolution.

But for all his gargantuan mistakes, Maliki's failings are not the reason why the Iraqi state is disintegrating. What destabilised Iraq from 2011 on was the revolt of the Sunni in Syria and the takeover of that revolt by jihadis, who were often sponsored by donors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates. Again and again Iraqi politicians warned that by not seeking to close down the civil war in Syria, Western leaders were making it inevitable that the conflict in Iraq would restart. "I guess they just didn't believe us and were fixated on getting rid of [President Bashar al-] Assad," said an Iraqi leader in Baghdad last week.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html

[Dicer]

Russia is only responsible to the extent that they like to make money and to be powerful by selling lots of weapons and ammo to Syria. Israel has little influence in Syria, with any side, and has barely been involved (I guess that one Su-24 shot down years into the conflict makes Israel responsible for every single death in the Syrian civil war!).

Russia/China are also playing geopolitical games here by supporting Assad’s regime with weapons and money. And Israel needs Saudi Arabia, just as much as Saudi Arabia needs Israel (You scratch my back and I will scratch yours) and they have common enemies in Iran, Hezbollah and Syria. Hezbollah is currently fighting Al-Nusra in Lebanon and Syria. Since Israel would like to take out Hezbollah, they are doing their bit where possible. Hence shooting down the Syrian bomber and attacking Hezbollah in Syria.

Fighting has already dragged on for three weeks and so far neither side has been able to deliver a decisive blow. Syrian troops and Hezbollah fighters launched the offensive against Qusair in mid-May and gained ground, but rebels have been able to defend some positions.

Low-flying Israeli warplanes also violated Lebanese airspace, overflying Beirut, the eastern Bekaa valley and Baalbek.

The Lebanese president, Michel Suleiman, said Beirut would lodge a complaint with the UN about Israel's "extensive" violations of Lebanese airspace. There was no immediate comment from Israel.

The flights come amid heightened regional tensions because of the civil war in Syria. Israel is believed to have carried out three airstrikes inside Syria this year, said to be aimed at weapons destined for Hezbollah.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/02/hezbollah-syria-rebels-clash-lebanon

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/10/hezbollah-deadly-lebanon-clashes-2014105151439774403.html

In the war between Hezbollah and Al-Nusra, Israel/US wants Hezbollah to lose or at the least to get weakened or damaged significantly.

To the United States and its allies, the Nusra Front is a fearsome al Qaida affiliate whose extremist ideology has no place in a future Syria.

To many Syrian rebels, however, Nusra fighters are vital warriors in the battle to topple President Bashar Assad, even if the moderates don’t share the group’s end goal of a religious state.

This disconnect has existed since the early days of the Syrian conflict, when the Obama administration first designated Nusra a foreign terrorist organization. It explains in no small part why Western nations have been slow to offer lethal aid to moderate rebels who maintain close relations with Nusra.

The risk of empowering an al Qaida affiliate is a small price to pay for Nusra’s contributions on the battlefield, said Jeffrey White, a former senior Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who’s now with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank.

“We are degrading, by hitting Nusra, the capability of one of the most effective combat forces against the regime and against Hezbollah,” White said, referring to the Lebanese Shiite Muslim militia that has sent troops to help defend the Assad government. “Do we really want to do that? A broader campaign against Nusra needs to be carefully thought through.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/10/02/241894_us-anti-assad-rebels-in-syria.html?sp=/99/200/111/&rh=1

[Dicer]

The US barely gave any weapons to the insurgents (Obama did not want to enter yet another long war and feared sophisticated weapons would be turned against the US, much like ISIS is doing now with material from the Iraqi army) and still declined to intervene even after Obama's "red line" for use of chemical weapons was breached.

Ironically, I have visited forums where many participants, including Arabs, hold the US responsible for the current mess because they didn't deliver (enough) weapons nor intervened themselves, while here the US got blamed exactly because it would have supplied weapons and/or funding. A look at the weapons used in Syria (overwhelmingly Russian or Chinese stuff), then it is clear that the US did not deliver weapons until recently TOW anti-tank weapons started to appear with selected rebel formations.

I found this to be rather hilarious:

The US air strikes against ISIS are in part to destroy US military equipment, such as the artillery ISIS has been using against Kurdish forces.

The absurdity runs deep: America is using American military equipment to bomb other pieces of American military equipment halfway around the world. The reason the American military equipment got there in the first place was because, in 2003, the US had to use its military to rebuild the Iraqi army, which it just finished destroying with the American military.

The American weapons the US gave the Iraqi army totally failed at making Iraq secure and have become tools of terror used by an offshoot of al-Qaeda to terrorize the Iraqis that the US supposedly liberated a decade ago. And so now the US has to use American weaponry to destroy the American weaponry it gave Iraqis to make Iraqis safer, in order to make Iraqis safer.

It keeps going: the US is intervening on behalf of Iraqi Kurds, our ally, because their military has old Russian-made weapons, whereas ISIS, which is America's enemy, has higher-quality American weapons. "[Kurdish forces] are literally outgunned by an ISIS that is fighting with hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. military equipment seized from the Iraqi Army who abandoned it," Ali Khedery, a former American official in Iraq, told the New York Times.

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/8/5982501/the-us-is-now-bombing-its-own-military-equipment-in-iraq

This could be why your Arab forum buddies are complaining about weapons. The 'good' guys are fighting with Russian weapons against ISIS armed with American weapons!

This report talks about how ISIS got it’s weapons:

According to Brown Moses, a U.K.-based blog that has emerged during the Syrian civil war as the foremost authority on the weapons used in that conflict, ISIS has now obtained rocket launchers, grenade launchers and American-made M60 machine guns from Croatia through Saudi Arabia. After being sold to the Saudis, the weapons were, according to blog founder Eliot Higgins, flown to Turkey and then smuggled into Syria overland before being sold or given to ISIS.

Higgins’ reconstruction of the flow of weapons into Syria is supported by a New York Times report from 2013 that examined air traffic data showing more than 160 flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari cargo planes landing at Turkish airports. Those flights were loaded with arms destined for Syrian rebels, according to officials cited in the report. The report also showed data proving that Saudi military flights were going in and out of Croatia around the same time.

http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-weapons-growing-number-sophistication-soviet-balkan-american-mix-group-cant-use-all-1659176

And by the way where do the Saudis get all their money and weapons from?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/world/middleeast/with-30-billion-arms-deal-united-states-bolsters-ties-to-saudi-arabia.html?_r=0

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33533.pdf

If we look at Libya, we see that the effect of western intervention in such conflicts is the same as when there is no intervention: the hardline Islamists take power, either way. Which suggests the fault is not in Western (non)intervention; the region is simply ripe for this kind of result.

It’s been shown time and again that the Western powers either support the more extremist/non democratic elements in the region or they support groups that morph into ideologically extremist organizations. Libya, Afghanistan and Syria are prime examples of this.

And it’s not just here but in general in the Middle East that’s been the case. From the CIA trying to assassinate Gamel Abdel Nasser to counter his secular nationalism or support for the dictatorships in Egypt, Bahrain etc. Unless secular elements and secular thinking are allowed to flourish, one is giving the advantage to the extremist groups. And that’s precisely what the west is doing by supporting Saudi Arabia and similar tyrants.

[Wouter]

There’s more than enough evidence out there to show that the Saudi/US/Israeli/Turkish/Qatar alliance had a hand in creating the monster that is ISIS.

You do know that both during and after the American invasion of Iraq, there has been continued civil wars and insurgency there by different groups?

From the time the US invaded Iraq, there has never been stability there. Thousands of Iraqis were dying every year. The support of the West for Syrian fighters also did not help:

1. There is no such thing as a Saudi/US/Israeli/Turkish/Qatar alliance. Each of those are looking out for their own interests, which often don't align. For example, Qatar is said to be deeply involved with Al-Nusra while Turkey is acting as a "competitor" to Qatar by supporting the Daesh. Which in turn is not liked by the US, who bombed both Al-Nusra (what the US calls the "Khorasan"-group, but is "just" Al-Nusra) and the Daesh. The Saudis support other formations, who are still Islamist but less hostile to non-islamists. And Israel and Turkey used to be allies, 20 years ago, but now the ruling AKP party and Israel are closer to being at war than being allies. The AKP are big cheerleaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (while the new Egyptian dictator is an ally of Israel) and their pals in Hamas.

There is no monolithic bloc under the command of Washington. All those countries and politicians have their own agenda's and, strange as it may sound to some, they don't just act as Washington puppets obeying Obama's wishes every time. Those people are responsible for their own actions; if Qatar, Saudi-Arabia or Turkey provide weapons to various groups of Islamists, then that is their decision and one shouldn't assume this is on Washington's orders or even with Washington's consent. And Erdogan isn't going to consult with Israel before he provides weapons to the Daesh...

2. When the American general Petraeus led the 2007 "surge" ordered by Bush, part of his strategy was to fight Al-Zarqawi's group (what is now ISIS, in effect) by seeking allies among the Sunni tribes. This strategy worked well and the Sunni parts of the country got stabilised. When Al-Malili took over though, he wasted no time to alienate the Iraqi Sunnis, much to the chagrin of Washington (but to Iran's liking, of course), until he finally got rid of the Sunni's in his government by accusing them of being terrorists. It turns out now that he also declined to arm the Sunni and Kurdish parts of his army that existed only on paper, which is why the Daesh could take US weapons so easily as they were unmanned in military bases without the Sunni soldiers supposed to be operating them.

3.The west has barely given any support to Syrian fighters until very recently; the most they would do was give bulletproof vests, communication equipment and such, and no weapons. The West was not involved in what the Qatari's and Erdogan were doing, and barely involved in Saudi ventures. Obama always feared rebels would turn weapons against US interests, sooner or later. You can still see the frustration about this with Erdogan, who is demanding the US would help to remove Assad before he would stop the onslaught of the Daesh.

[Wouter]

Russia/China are also playing geopolitical games here by supporting Assad’s regime with weapons and money.

In the war between Hezbollah and Al-Nusra, Israel/US wants Hezbollah to lose or at the least to get weakened or damaged significantly.

1. China has not involved itself. Chinese weapons have reached the battlefield, but this happens through transactions between such countries as Sudan (which has received Chinese weapons in quantities) and the Gulf states or Turkey. The Chinese anti-air MANPADS type FN6 that were recently used to down Iraqi helis were Chinese made, but bought by Qatar for the Syrian rebels and supplied through Turkey. Just as Obama feared, at least some ended up in ISIS hands. Which is why the US would not provide Stingers, as they did with the Afghan rebels in the 80s.

2. Israel would want Hezbollah to lose, sure, but the US bombed Al-Nusra positions close to Lebanon. Promptly followed by a succesful Hezbollah offensive in that region. If they wanted Hezbollah to lose from Al-nusra, presumably it would be counterproductive to bomb the side you want to "win"?

To the US, it's the pest or the cholera anyway. Hezbollah itself isn't that much better than Al-Nusra.

[Wouter]

This could be why your Arab forum buddies are complaining about weapons. The 'good' guys are fighting with Russian weapons against ISIS armed with American weapons!

And by the way where do the Saudis get all their money and weapons from?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/world/middleeast/with-30-billion-arms-deal-united-states-bolsters-ties-to-saudi-arabia.html?_r=0

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33533.pdf

1. The Arabs complaining do so for one simple reason: that Obama would not provide Stingers, TOW missiles, artillery, a no-fly zone,etc, to the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Which meant the various groups making up the very loose coalition that was the "FSA" turned to other sources for their weapons, with the more radical Gulf states and Turkey willing to play ball (but only for groups of their choosing, groups with the right islamic attitude). According to them, the lack of support for moderates (such as they are, but relative to Daesh even Hezbollah looks good) led to a major shift in power to extremists and especially to the foreign jihadis that are now conquering Syria and Iraq.

I also think the "armed with US weapons" thing is being exaggerated. The ISIS has been using a lot of Humvee's taken from the Iraqi army stocks, but the tanks they are using around Kobani for instance, are still the usual Russian types (also taken from either Syrian or Iraqi army). Almost all of the heavy weaponry of ISIS has been captured from opponents. Not only Iraqi, but also many Syrian army bases have been overrun during the conflict. Some heavy weapons may have changed hands multiple times by now.

2. The Saudis get their money from their oil, doh. It's not like the US is donating them dollars or anything, the sheiks are filty rich due to the stupid luck of sitting on oil wells.

As for the weapons, the Saudi air force operates US and European planes like the F15S and the Tornado, for example. Both of which are now being used to bomb the Daesh. So, where do the Saudis get their weapons? Well, for their own forces, from the West. For supply to the Syrian rebels, with exception of recent TOW shipments they get them in ways similar to the Chinese MANPAD example from above; they buy surplus Chinese or Russian stuff from whomever is willing to sell (Libya and Sudan are two excellent sources) and make sure it gets to the groups of their choice. Or they buy from the more or less unaligned Croatia. The US is not necessarily involved with any of these deals, and may have pressured its "allies" (such as they are) not to deliver sophisticated anti-air weaponry to rebels in spite of the demand to stop the Syrian air force. Obviously, the Syrian rebels did not receive F15 or Eurofighter jet planes.

That's not to say the Saudis aren't an oppressive bunch, but I wouldn't say the Saudis are the weak ones in the relationship between them and the west. They have the oil, while the west is collectively broke. And the Saudi influence in the west is now bigger, IMO, then the western influence in Saudi-Arabia. The Saudis have succesfully spread their Wahhabism to Europe; just yesterday it was news here that some shopkeepers in Brussels are now being extorted by Daesh thugs to "contribute" money to their cause, or get beheaded. This is Europe anno 2014.

[Dicer]

1. There is no such thing as a Saudi/US/Israeli/Turkish/Qatar alliance. Each of those are looking out for their own interests, which often don't align. For example, Qatar is said to be deeply involved with Al-Nusra while Turkey is acting as a "competitor" to Qatar by supporting the Daesh. Which in turn is not liked by the US, who bombed both Al-Nusra (what the US calls the "Khorasan"-group, but is "just" Al-Nusra) and the Daesh. The Saudis support other formations, who are still Islamist but less hostile to non-islamists. And Israel and Turkey used to be allies, 20 years ago, but now the ruling AKP party and Israel are closer to being at war than being allies. The AKP are big cheerleaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (while the new Egyptian dictator is an ally of Israel) and their pals in Hamas.

Yes, there is a group of countries that are aligned against Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. If you bother reading my links, that should be clear. That's the basis of Shia/Sunni divide and Israel is involved because it's the Shias (With the exception of Hamas) that's taking action against Israel.

For instance the Israeli Justice minister, Tzipi Livni had this to say:

SIEGEL: Here's Israel's situation in the region it seems. You're worried about the very movements and the very countries that worry the Egyptians, the Saudis, the Jordanians, the United Arab Emirates, the Turks, to a great extent - without a Palestinian agreement, though, they can't deal with you as a public ally and partner in the region. Are regional concerns strong enough to lead the Israelis to say we've got to - we have to get a deal with the Palestinians to be above-board players in the Middle East?

LIVNI: This is what I believe in. The world is divided between the good guys and the bad guys. And we, Israel - of course, the United States - the legitimate Palestinian government, Egypt, Jordan are the Gulf States. We are part of the camp of so-called moderates or diplomatics against these terrorists. Now among us there is this ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian that affects...

http://www.npr.org/2014/09/30/352808212/israel-justice-minister-u-s-shouldnt-give-up-on-palestinian-peace-process

So we have the Israeli justice minister who is disagreeing with you here. She says that Israel, US, Egypt, the Gulf States are all the good guys here and the moderates (LOL!) who are fighting against the 'bad' guys or terrorists.

So it's not like Israel and Saudi Arabia are best pals. They are not. They probably hate each others guts. It's that they see Syria and more importantly Iran as the bigger threat. Same goes for Turkey. Qatar and UAE also want to weaken the Shias.

The Saudis support other formations, who are still Islamist but less hostile to non-islamists.

LOL. Just ridiculous nonsense. Can you give me some examples and links to all this? And how does their being less hostile to non-Islamists justify their hatred for Shias.

There is no monolithic bloc under the command of Washington. All those countries and politicians have their own agenda's and, strange as it may sound to some, they don't just act as Washington puppets obeying Obama's wishes every time. Those people are responsible for their own actions; if Qatar, Saudi-Arabia or Turkey provide weapons to various groups of Islamists, then that is their decision and one shouldn't assume this is on Washington's orders or even with Washington's consent. And Erdogan isn't going to consult with Israel before he provides weapons to the Daesh...

You just keep making strawman arguments since I have never said that Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey were Washington's puppet. That's hardly true since the US vice president had to apologize to the Saudi prince for telling the truth. They are each in this alliance for their own reasons and to further their own geopolitical interests.

2. When the American general Petraeus led the 2007 "surge" ordered by Bush, part of his strategy was to fight Al-Zarqawi's group (what is now ISIS, in effect) by seeking allies among the Sunni tribes. This strategy worked well and the Sunni parts of the country got stabilised. When Al-Malili took over though, he wasted no time to alienate the Iraqi Sunnis, much to the chagrin of Washington (but to Iran's liking, of course), until he finally got rid of the Sunni's in his government by accusing them of being terrorists. It turns out now that he also declined to arm the Sunni and Kurdish parts of his army that existed only on paper, which is why the Daesh could take US weapons so easily as they were unmanned in military bases without the Sunni soldiers supposed to be operating them.

First, can you give links to back up what you are saying? About the country being stabilized and all? That would help.

Second, Al-Zarqawi got to Iraq because of the war. The Iraq war destroyed the country and got the worst elements in there including Al-Qaeda to fight the Americans.

Thirdly, since the Americans deposed the Sunni dictator, of course a Shia was going to head the Iraqi government after an election, considering the majority of Iraqis are Shias. Naturally they are going to align with Iran. Anyone with a brain could see that. And Sunnis were going to fight back leading to 10 years of civil war, death and destruction.

In July 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported that 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa. 50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come as suicide bombers. In the six months preceding that article, such bombings have killed or injured 4,000 Iraqis

So, the reasons ISIS is in Iraq:

1. Iraq was ripe for the taking, being fragile and vulnerable after 10 years of civil war and insurgency among various groups and foreign fighters who were already in there

2. ISIS was nurtured and created in neighboring Syria and very quickly became too big for itself and marched onto Iraq as well despite the Iraqis warning the West of the ISIS threat. The West wanted Assad gone more than being worried about ISIS.

3.The west has barely given any support to Syrian fighters until very recently; the most they would do was give bulletproof vests, communication equipment and such, and no weapons. The West was not involved in what the Qatari's and Erdogan were doing, and barely involved in Saudi ventures. Obama always feared rebels would turn weapons against US interests, sooner or later. You can still see the frustration about this with Erdogan, who is demanding the US would help to remove Assad before he would stop the onslaught of the Daesh.

Links to back up what you are saying please? And maybe you can also explain the information in my links showing the exact opposite of what you are saying is wrong?

[Dicer]

1. China has not involved itself. Chinese weapons have reached the battlefield, but this happens through transactions between such countries as Sudan (which has received Chinese weapons in quantities) and the Gulf states or Turkey. The Chinese anti-air MANPADS type FN6 that were recently used to down Iraqi helis were Chinese made, but bought by Qatar for the Syrian rebels and supplied through Turkey. Just as Obama feared, at least some ended up in ISIS hands. Which is why the US would not provide Stingers, as they did with the Afghan rebels in the 80s.

So you admit that Qatar is buying weapons for Syrian rebels? ISIS are Syrian rebels too you know? They are fighting against Assad.

2. Israel would want Hezbollah to lose, sure, but the US bombed Al-Nusra positions close to Lebanon. Promptly followed by a succesful Hezbollah offensive in that region. If they wanted Hezbollah to lose from Al-nusra, presumably it would be counterproductive to bomb the side you want to "win"?

To the US, it's the pest or the cholera anyway. Hezbollah itself isn't that much better than Al-Nusra.

Again, did you actually read the links and quotes that I posted? Since you don't seem to understand this is the gist:

1. Israel is attacking Hezbollah in Syria and flying over Lebanon

2. Israel downed a Syrian bomber that was attacking Al-Nusra which was fighting Hezbollah in the Golan heights

3. The Americans also bombed Al-Nusra because they are a particularly nasty, vicious group as bad as ISIS

4. But the Americans are also cautious. Too much damage to Al-Nusra could end up helping Hezbollah and Assad

This explains Israeli interest in this conflict and their alliance with the Saudis to undermine Assad, Hezbollah and Iran.

No one is denying that the Americans and Saudis are now understanding the monster they created. This thing has become bigger and nastier and is endangering their own cause in the region and hence they are trying to kill that which they created. But they will try to do so without empowering their enemies (Assad) too much.

[Arakan]

A preliminary evaluation of the situation in Syria and Iraq can result only in one outcome: Russia was the only major foreign power which analyzed the events properly, since the beginning of the so called Arab Spring.

I am well aware that many in these threads will call my statement idiotic but who cares.

The actions of Players like the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Turkey are the reasons why religious fanatism and violence are growing like cancer.

IS is the (unwanted?) child of the aformentioned nations. It shows again that US foreign policy post 1989 is a big joke. Clueless, completely clueless.

Someone like Kissinger would have learned a lesson or two from the Soviet Afghanistan fiasco and the post 1988 chaos there.

Current American politicans (well starting after Bush senior)? Not so much...

The MENA region from Libya to Iraq is a failed clusterfuck.