Obama Authorizes Air Strikes on "ISIS", and Inevitably Many Civilians

[Skyhilist]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/obama-speech-authorise-air-strikes-against-isis-syria

Well, looking like there will be more air strikes in the Middle East by the US. My thoughts are with all the civilians who might be affected by this. Fuck Obama, his imperialist agenda, and his warmongering and blatant disregard for civilian casualties.

[Hrafn]

To blame this on Obama is too simplistic.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

To blame this on Obama is too simplistic.

True ... it's the way many blamed Bush for the disastrous Iraq war - of course he was complicit and had his responsibility, but focusing on him absolves the neocons around him who had been pushing for war. It's too simplistic of a way of thinking about liberal bourgeois institutions.

[Skyhilist]

Good point, fuck Obama AND all the other people behind the making of these decisions and and the creation of right-wing groups overseas.

[Rottenfruit]

Good point, fuck Obama AND all the other people behind the making of these decisions and and the creation of right-wing groups overseas.
and what should be done about isis? let them burn iraq down and commit genocide without stopping them ?

[The Intransigent Faction]

and what should be done about isis? let them burn iraq down and commit genocide without stopping them ?

Bombing or invading only helps them do that.

[Atsumari]

No surprise there, the US once again took one of the most idiotic decisions regarding Islamist groups.
http://www.gazettenet.com/home/13486898-95/vijay-prashad-what-president-obama-should-not-do-about-isis

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

To blame this on Obama is too simplistic.

Yeah but you need a face to throw the pie at lest you never find closure and continue wasting pies.

Mujahideen-->Al-Qaeda-->ISIS (it's not even it's final form!)

But really though the CIA or ISIS as it wants to be called in the Middle East is pretty sick.

[flaming bolshevik]

So I get that Obama bombing isis will cause civilian casualties and it seems most of us are against that, what do you guys think is a good solution? We can't just let them do what they're doing.

[Atsumari]

So I get that Obama bombing isis will cause civilian casualties and it seems most of us are against that, what do you guys think is a good solution? We can't just let them do what they're doing.
America is not the only faction in the region capable of fighting ISIS and many of the anti-Islamist factions are actually pretty powerful, but not invincible by any means.

[Skyhilist]

I think we have go get out of this mindset of "Well what do you want them to do?" as if we see the USA as being some benevolent global police force that we just wish we had a bit more control over.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think we have go get out of this mindset of "Well what do you want them to do?" as if we see the USA as being some benevolent global police force that we just wish we had a bit more control over.

I agree with this but even if America still feels the need to be there they should atleast do a good job or try too. What do I mean by this? During the war against Bosnia in the wake of the split of the Yugoslavia, America and UN forces felt the need to be there and then sat around while the Serbs offed 8k+ Bosniaks. Like that's really, really fucked IMHO.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

and what should be done about isis? let them burn iraq down and commit genocide without stopping them ?

Yeah if anyone is going to burn Iraq down and commit genocide it's going to NATO goddammit. Let ISIS find it's own population to terrorize and humiliate, we called dibs on this one first.

[DOOM]

Yeah but you need a face to throw the pie at lest you never find closure and continue wasting pies.

Mujahideen-->Al-Qaeda-->ISIS (it's not even it's final form!)

But really though the CIA or ISIS as it wants to be called in the Middle East is pretty sick.

oh boy here we go

[Devrim]

So I get that Obama bombing isis will cause civilian casualties and it seems most of us are against that, what do you guys think is a good solution? We can't just let them do what they're doing.

I don't think that imperialist intervention can bring about any good solution. Basically bombing the Middle East and flooding it with arms makes it, unsurprisingly, more unstable. Do you honestly think that America's interventions have improved conditions in the Middle East?

The position for socialists to take in America and the other western nations is very clear; oppose the imperialist interventions of you own state.

It's not a difficult position to understand; stop dropping bombs on the Middle East.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

To blame this on Obama is too simplistic.

Obama has "executive action" so its really not simplistic to blame him for most things such as immigration, imperialism, or racist police because the executive has the power to enforce or ignore any law that it wants.

[RedSonRising]

Not to defend US imperialism or dismiss the fact that Obama has the blood of many civilians on his hands, but my impression is that the strikes against ISIS thus far have been isolated from civilian areas and that generally the targeting of ISIS militants has avoided civilian deaths due to their location and more easily distinguishable activities.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Not to defend US imperialism or dismiss the fact that Obama has the blood of many civilians on his hands, but my impression is that the strikes against ISIS thus far have been isolated from civilian areas and that generally the targeting of ISIS militants has avoided civilian deaths due to their location and more easily distinguishable activities.

Their fighters are on the offensive for the moment so of course they are separated from civilians, but whats going to happen when they go on the defensive inside of the territory they control?

Are people really foolish enough to think anything about the combat doctrine of the US has changed with administrations? what a joke.

[Devrim]

Not to defend US imperialism or dismiss the fact that Obama has the blood of many civilians on his hands, but my impression is that the strikes against ISIS thus far have been isolated from civilian areas and that generally the targeting of ISIS militants has avoided civilian deaths due to their location and more easily distinguishable activities.

I notice that you live in New York. It seems to me to be quite far from the Middle East. Now I don't know if the targeting of US bombs has improved, but the last time that they were dropping 'smart bombs' on Iraq, more than a few of them happened to land in Turkey. Now if a bomb is so 'smart' that it can't land in the country that it is intended to, I personally fail to see how they can manage to 'avoid civilian casualties'.

That is not even the point though. It is imperialist intervention that has caused this monster we have now, and every bomb they drop on ISIS ultimately will lead in the long term to more recruits to radical islamicist groups. If you fail to see this you are probably so shortsighted that you could get a job in the state department.

The position for western communist to take is quite simple; against your own countries intervention. All of the liberal heart wringing about dealing with ISIS ignores the fact that it is america's one creation.

It's not a difficult idea to understand; stop dropping bombs on the Middle East.

Devrim

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Obama has "executive action" so its really not simplistic to blame him for most things such as immigration, imperialism, or racist police because the executive has the power to enforce or ignore any law that it wants.

Executive actions don't work like that, they're not a blank check. It does give the President a lot of freedom to act on these issues, but only to a point.

[ckaihatsu]

Not to defend US imperialism or dismiss the fact that Obama has the blood of many civilians on his hands, but my impression is that the strikes against ISIS thus far have been isolated from civilian areas and that generally the targeting of ISIS militants has avoided civilian deaths due to their location and more easily distinguishable activities.


Things will probably hinge, as ever, on whether the militants have the sympathies and support of the larger population, then.

[RedSonRising]

Their fighters are on the offensive for the moment so of course they are separated from civilians, but whats going to happen when they go on the defensive inside of the territory they control?

Are people really foolish enough to think anything about the combat doctrine of the US has changed with administrations? what a joke.

Well the dynamic and the strategy might change once they recede. But you're probably right, it could devolve into the same

Nobody has suggested the "combat doctrine" has changed, only that the circumstances allow for a current avoidance of civilian deaths.


I notice that you live in New York. It seems to me to be quite far from the Middle East. Now I don't know if the targeting of US bombs has improved, but the last time that they were dropping 'smart bombs' on Iraq, more than a few of them happened to land in Turkey. Now if a bomb is so 'smart' that it can't land in the country that it is intended to, I personally fail to see how they can manage to 'avoid civilian casualties'.

That is not even the point though. It is imperialist intervention that has caused this monster we have now, and every bomb they drop on ISIS ultimately will lead in the long term to more recruits to radical islamicist groups. If you fail to see this you are probably so shortsighted that you could get a job in the state department.

The position for western communist to take is quite simple; against your own countries intervention. All of the liberal heart wringing about dealing with ISIS ignores the fact that it is america's one creation.

It's not a difficult idea to understand; stop dropping bombs on the Middle East.

Devrim

Yes, New York is quite far from the Middle East. Congratulations on that observation!

The inaccuracies of military violence have caused civilian casualties numerous times throughout the last decade in the Middle East, but that doesn't mean such gross errors are commonplace. The US often uses drones to kill their targets without disregard for civilian life, which is undoubtedly true. But my only point was that at the moment, targets seem to be more isolated from civilians than the preceding number of insurgent groups which have born the brunt of US airstrikes.

I also never contradicted the fact that US military action in the region won't inflame terrorist activity and create a new generation of Islamist terrorists. That's a clear pattern seen throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan and Syria and Yemen. So your implication of my "shortsightedness" is a mere strawman.

At the end of the day, I also think it's best to adopt the position that the United States drop no more bombs on the Middle East. Although I also don't remember stating that my position was otherwise.


Things will probably hinge, as ever, on whether the militants have the sympathies and support of the larger population, then.

Also true. I think there is far too much hostility against ISIS's brand of extremism in the region for them to last in any case. Their model of organization is not sustainable and their widespread intolerance and threats of expansion simply won't fly.

[Solarstone]

Obama will drag this for another 10 years...obviously he wants to drive the oil prices up and boost arms industries along with eliminating crazy lunatics in the middle east.

[ckaihatsu]

Things will probably hinge, as ever, on whether the militants have the sympathies and support of the larger population, then.





Also true. I think there is far too much hostility against ISIS's brand of extremism in the region for them to last in any case. Their model of organization is not sustainable and their widespread intolerance and threats of expansion simply won't fly.


I roundly disagree here -- fortunately someone else just posted an apt analysis at another thread:





Comrade, it looks like ISIS is becoming the Khmer Rouge of the Middle East. You can thank the U.S. bombing and killing. In other words, the war that U.S. imperialism have waged has created a major Frankenstein. Now ISIS is attracting crazy Jihadists from all over the Muslim world and even from the Western non-Muslim countries. Like the Khmer Rouge, Isis is going to end up killing millions of people. :mad:


Consider that geopolitical conditions are becoming similar to those of the '70s where there was economic stagnation and the U.S. hegemon decidedly faltered. In such an environment petty opportunism will blossom, now out from under the shadow of world empire.

I'd rather see ISIS shunned on the ground and annihilated from above rather than a new Khmer-Rouge-like element gain traction and carve out a dominion of its own with unchecked bloodletting.

[ckaihatsu]

Interesting position:


---


VoteVets opposes arming the Syrian rebels


VoteVets.org

Chris -

Almost one year ago, we asked VoteVets supporters to write their Members of Congress urging them to oppose military intervention in Syria.

Over 50,000 of you did.

I listened to President Obama’s speech on Wednesday night with great interest, and believe he made a compelling case for the pursuit and destruction of ISIS.

But, once again, VoteVets cannot support sending arms to Syrian rebels that many reports continue to suggest are still fighting alongside some of the same groups we fought against in Iraq, and are even reportedly entering into truces with ISIS. (1) (2)

Additionally, to think that training and providing equipment to the Free Syrian Army is a decisive course of action in Syria is flawed. The United States has spent $25 billion to train and equip Iraqi Security forces (3) which were overrun by ISIS earlier this year. $500 million in arms and training to a less effective force only guarantees, at best, a stalemate that is passed to the next president. Or, worse, potentially obligate even more U.S. forces in the region at a later date.

We don’t oppose using force to attack ISIS, but the idea of utilizing the Free Syrian Army to carry the load in Syria is unrealistic.

As one of the final advisors out of Northern Iraq, I fully supported President Obama’s efforts to hold the Kurdish line and protect the slaughter of tens of thousands of Yezidis on Mount Sinjar. I applaud efforts to be more inclusive of country’s Sunni minority in a new, post-Maliki government in Iraq.

But we risk making some of the same mistakes in Syria we made during the initial 2003 invasion of Iraq, and today, I cannot support that.

Tell me what you think:

http://action.votevets.org/thoughts

Adding to this, it’s important to note just how tall of an ask this is of the American people, and those who serve, in light of recent efforts by some in Congress to block money meant to improve veterans’ health care, education, and job training.

The cost of war doesn’t end when the last soldier returns home, or missile system is sent to an enemy of our enemy. Any money Congress authorizes to expand our operations into Syria should be matched by an investment in the care of those who have fought our previous wars.

Thanks for sounding off,

Jon Soltz
Iraq War Veteran and Chairman
VoteVets.org





(1) http://www.ibtimes.com/us-backed-moderate-group-syria-signs-truce-isis-reports-1687662

(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/isis-deal-syria_n_5814128.html

(3) https://twitter.com/RichardEngel/status/510200061137911808












PAID FOR BY VOTEVETS ACTION FUND
This email was sent to [email protected] If that is not your preferred email address, click here. Click here if you'd like to unsubscribe. We try to send only the most important information and opportunities to participate via email. To sustain VoteVets with a contribution click here.

[Slavic]

Obama will drag this for another 10 years...obviously he wants to drive the oil prices up and boost arms industries along with eliminating crazy lunatics in the middle east.

I hardly doubt that is the case. Washington wants powerful allies in the middle east so they they can project their military and keep markets open, ala Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc.

ISIS is a direct threat against the US's allies and could destabilize these countries and open the ground for more anti-us fundamentalists taking power. The sooner ISIS and Assad are eliminated, the sooner the US can have their client and allied states in the region open up their market and resources unhindered.

[Bolshevik800]

To blame this on Obama is too simplistic.

I have to disagree with you Comrade on the fact being being Americas capitalist regime is ruling the world am I right , also America is NATO what America say's goes' basically with there corrupt friends the ; British-Imperial-Capitalistic-War-Machine they make money through terror and killing for the corrupt city of London .

[Slavic]

I have to disagree with you Comrade on the fact being being Americas capitalist regime is ruling the world am I right , also America is NATO what America say's goes' basically with there corrupt friends the ; British-Imperial-Capitalistic-War-Machine they make money through terror and killing for the corrupt city of London .

Yes blame the state, of course, but what hrafn is saying is that Obama isn't the sole reason for these air strikes and to think of the US president wielding executive power like a king is silly

[Rottenfruit]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/obama-speech-authorise-air-strikes-against-isis-syria

Well, looking like there will be more air strikes in the Middle East by the US. My thoughts are with all the civilians who might be affected by this. Fuck Obama, his imperialist agenda, and his warmongering and blatant disregard for civilian casualties.

something has to be done about isis, yes bombing will kill civilians but allowing isis to be left alone will result in them committing genocide and raving and destroying iraq. So if it takes "imperalism" to stop another Rwanda so be it

[Rottenfruit]

Bombing or invading only helps them do that.
it already save the lifes of thousand of yazidis and the bombing of isis prevented them to go in kirkuk to slaughter the turkmen minority

[Scheveningen]

if it takes "imperalism" to stop another Rwanda so be it
Keep in mind that imperialism caused this (and Rwanda) in first place, that its actions strengthen ISIS or anyway further destabilize the region (airstrikes fight them as a military opponent, but an irregular army is never just that), that it keeps propping up the same regimes which support and help spreading religious extremism and movements like ISIS, or which create the conditions for this type of slaughter with their sectarian and repressive policies.

[Creative Destruction]

I'm getting tired of the response on the radical left of being kneejerkingly "Imperialism caused this." Okay, we all know that, but what then? Taking the position that absolutely nothing should be done or that the only thing anyone should do is to keep their home countries from bombing ISIS isn't exactly endearing. And the matter of fact is that bombings did help hinder ISIS from committing a complete genocide against the Yazidi, so it is not as clear cut as "NO TO IMPERIALIST BOMBINGS." That's not particularly inspiring when you're offering up fuck all as to what to do to prevent the genocidal activities of these nutcases.

Nonetheless, we get it. Imperialism started it. More bombings may inflame the situation. The question facing leftists right now, in order to be at all relevant, is what can be done about it (besides the weak ass answer "Keep your home countries out of it")? What is our alternative to this emergency? ISIS is an imperialist force as well. Literally, their stated aim is to create a strict medieval-like Islamic empire. To ask this question and to discuss it isn't like being a Hitchens-esque turncoat.

So, turn away from that kind of kneejerk response. We're all anti-imperialist. We should be anti-Islamic imperialists as well. What to do next? Should be start taking up collections for the PKK and the Syrian and Iraqi communists and radicals? Let's start framing the discussion like that. Also, relegating this question, as Devrim has, to the "bleeding heart liberals" is about as snide, sniveling and callous as you could be toward people who are actually being slaughtered wholesale, while you say it from the comfort of your privileged existence. Try being a "bleeding heart" communist instead of a sickening inversion of a neocon.

[Per Levy]

I'm getting tired of the response on the radical left of being kneejerkingly "Imperialism caused this." Okay, we all know that, but what then? Taking the position that absolutely nothing should be done or that the only thing anyone should do is to keep their home countries from bombing ISIS isn't exactly endearing. And the matter of fact is that bombings did help hinder ISIS from committing a complete genocide against the Yazidi, so it is not as clear cut as "NO TO IMPERIALIST BOMBINGS." That's not particularly inspiring when you're offering up fuck all as to what to do to prevent the genocidal activities of these nutcases.

so instead of arguing that more bombs, more weapons and more intervention will make everything worse we should say yes to all those things who made isis what they are today? makes sense.


Nonetheless, we get it. Imperialism started it. More bombings may inflame the situation. The question facing leftists right now, in order to be at all relevant, is what can be done about it (besides the weak ass answer "Keep your home countries out of it")? What is our alternative to this emergency? ISIS is an imperialist force as well. Literally, their stated aim is to create a strict medieval-like Islamic empire. To ask this question and to discuss it isn't like being a Hitchens-esque turncoat.

leftists groups arnt relavent and wont become more relavent when they adopt a position you agree on.


So, turn away from that kind of kneejerk response. We're all anti-imperialist. We should be anti-Islamic imperialists as well. What to do next? Should be start taking up collections for the PKK and the Syrian and Iraqi communists and radicals? Let's start framing the discussion like that.

so you are saying we should give money and support to nationalists(pkk), supporters of assad(syrian communist partys) and people who supported the invasion of iraq(communist party of iraq)?


Also, relegating this question, as Devrim has, to the "bleeding heart liberals" is about as snide, sniveling and callous as you could be toward people who are actually being slaughtered wholesale, while you say it from the comfort of your privileged existence. Try being a "bleeding heart" communist instead of a sickening inversion of a neocon.

devrim seems to has hit a nerve, wich judging by your politcs doesnt suprise all that much. but tell me again why you label yourself a council communist when you adhere to prety much nothing that tendency stands for?

[khad]

Just yesterday, there were reports coming out of Hasakah that the Kurdish YPG executed 45 "civilians" (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ar&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aljazeera.net%2Fnews%2Farabic%2 F2014%2F9%2F14%2F%25D9%2585%25D9%2584%25D9%258A%25 D8%25B4%25D9%258A%25D8%25A7%25D8%25AA-%25D9%2583%25D8%25B1%25D8%25AF%25D9%258A%25D8%25A9-%25D8%25AA%25D8%25B1%25D8%25AA%25D9%2583%25D8%25A8-%25D9%2585%25D8%25AC%25D8%25B2%25D8%25B1%25D8%25A9-%25D8%25A8%25D8%25B1%25D9%258A%25D9%2581-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25AD%25D8%25B3%25D9%2583 %25D8%25A9&edit-text=&act=url) in a village raid. I put that in quotation marks because I haven't seen all the bodies to ascertain whether or not they were civilians or militants. What I do know is that Tal Hamis is a forward position used by the Islamic State to pressure Qamishli. And in the recently-liberated town of Amerli in Iraq, (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/09/us-iraq-security-consequences-idUSKBN0H40B820140909) you hear similar reports of "civilian" executions and mass expulsions by local Shia and Kurdish forces.

Since these various local militias that the USA is keen on supporting don't have the power to effectively police areas retaken from the Islamic State, it shouldn't be all that surprising that they would resort to wholesale removal of these populations. And since these local militias (who have every reason to get payback for the atrocities committed against them) are such a cornerstone of Obama's "coalition" to defeat IS, you can probably expect more of this in the future.

If you say you want to destroy the Islamic State, then just say you want to kill them and drown their children in the Euprhates. If you can't accept civilian casualties, then just don't go to war or prance around beating the drums. Trying to cloak the reasons for war in humanitarian baggage is just pathetic, in my opinion. The only question is whose civilians die for whose military objectives.

Are those military objectives ultimately worth it? And for whom? Ending IS, toppling the Syrian government, independent Kurdistan, further embargoes on Iran, stop Saudi terror funding, etc... What's the endgame here, and who's going to pick up the pieces?

Just what are the objectives here? I really don't see discussion of this in concrete terms, not from the left, and certainly not from the Obama regime--as tempting as it is to just throw bombs at whatever bad shit seems to be happening.

[Creative Destruction]

so instead of arguing that more bombs, more weapons and more intervention will make everything worse we should say yes to all those things who made isis what they are today? makes sense.

Nope! Never made that argument, you incredibly stupid jackass. I said that leftists aren't actually dealing with the reality of the situation, and it's a lot messier than making a simple piddly assed argument about not actually doing anything.


leftists groups arnt relavent and wont become more relavent when they adopt a position you agree on.

I never said they had to adopt "my position," you incredibly stupid jackass. I said the conversation needs to be more than "Well, golly gee, ISIS is a product of imperialism and the only thing we should do is say our home countries shouldn't get involved." That's dreck. The conversation needs to move into a different direction, because it's a non-starter as it is now.


so you are saying we should give money and support to nationalists(pkk), supporters of assad(syrian communist partys) and people who supported the invasion of iraq(communist party of iraq)?

Nope, you incredibly stupid jackass, that's not necessarily what I'm saying or proposing. I'm saying we need to discuss this at a deeper and more meaningful level than Leftist 101 masturbation about anti-imperialism. We're all anti-imperialists. That's not exactly a groundbreaking or useful argument to make. It's incredibly banal and incredibly unhelpful.


devrim seems to has hit a nerve, wich judging by your politcs doesnt suprise all that much. but tell me again why you label yourself a council communist when you adhere to prety much nothing that tendency stands for?

Yes. When people posting on message boards from the comforts of their home, separated from a situation where thousands of people are being massacred, and then limits the conversation to a "do nothing" approach... it does hit a nerve. It's part of why the radical left is incredibly irrelevant and only obsessed with gazing at their own navels.

But hit me again on my tendency! Because that's an incredible argument that has worked before, you incredibly stupid jackass. I do adhere to council communism. Nothing I've said has run contrary to that. So, do you want to be a useless moron in this discussion or do you actually want to have a productive conversation that moves beyond revleft platitudes?

[Devrim]

Also, relegating this question, as Devrim has, to the "bleeding heart liberals" is about as snide, sniveling and callous as you could be toward people who are actually being slaughtered wholesale, while you say it from the comfort of your privileged existence. Try being a "bleeding heart" communist instead of a sickening inversion of a neocon.


Yes. When people posting on message boards from the comforts of their home, separated from a situation where thousands of people are being massacred, and then limits the conversation to a "do nothing" approach... it does hit a nerve. It's part of why the radical left is incredibly irrelevant and only obsessed with gazing at their own navels.


I'd imagine that I am sitting here in the comforts of my own home slightly closer to where all this is happening than you are, and I'd imagine that I knew slightly more people who have been killed in the Middle Easts various wars than you do. Even at a considerable distance, the suffering caused by these events is visible to me on a daily basis if only in the huge amount of refugees begging in the streets.

Yes, people are being slaughtered. Unfortunately it's nothing new. As you say imperialist intervention in the Middle East is the root cause of this, and in particular the destabilization of Syria and Iraq. ISIS is not some supreme military power that is going to sweep all before it, and commit genocide against millions. It's a movement that managed to step into the power vacuum created by the imperialist interventions, and expand rapidly. It seems that it has reached the limits of its expansion, and over the last three weeks it has been, slowly, losing ground.

In my opinion dropping bombs on Iraq, and Syria, and sending more arms into the region acts as a further destablising force. Not only will it, just like ISIS, murder more people, but also it will add to the instability of the region by pumping weapons into it, and increasing the number of willing recruits to Islamicist organisations. My belief is that in the long term further intervention will result in more massacres. None of this would be happening if the US and its allies hadn't decided to support the destablising of Syria.


Nope, you incredibly stupid jackass, that's not necessarily what I'm saying or proposing. I'm saying we need to discuss this at a deeper and more meaningful level than Leftist 101 masturbation about anti-imperialism. We're all anti-imperialists. That's not exactly a groundbreaking or useful argument to make. It's incredibly banal and incredibly unhelpful.

You're not an anti-imperialist. You are talking about supporting the imperialist interventions of your own state.

Devrim

[Creative Destruction]

You're not an anti-imperialist. You are talking about supporting the imperialist interventions of your own state.

What use is it to have a conversation with you if you're going to straight-up, baldface lie?

[Zukunftsmusik]

If not supporting an imperialist intervention by your own state as such, you did put forth the idea of supporting groups that are parts of American and Western imperialism in the region. Do you really think it's a good idea for anti-imperialists to get into that sort of activity? Is it indeed an anti-imperialist activity?

[Creative Destruction]

If not supporting an imperialist intervention by your own state as such, you did put forth the idea of supporting groups that are parts of American and Western imperialism
in the region. Do you really think it's a good idea for anti-imperialists to get into that sort of activity? Is it indeed an anti-imperialist activity?

Holy fucking shit. Is there some rule here on RevLeft where it is encouraged to set up and beat down straw men? Good lord.

The Idiot's Guide version of my post: we need to move the conversation in a direction that doesn't brickwall at "Don't support your home country's bombing activities." Fine, that's not up for debate. No one here does. Because of that, it's a non-starter. The question should be, what should the radical left community do? The questions I asked about the PKK, or Iraqi and Syrian communists were examples..not proposals. If they aren't acceptable people to support in a struggle like this, then who would be? I'd even be fine with an answer, at the end of it all, "Well, there's nothing we really can do as Western leftists" but after some sort of discussion and hashing shit out.

[Scheveningen]

do you actually want to have a productive conversation Coming from someone who calls people useless morons, idiots and incredibly stupid jackasses, this must be a joke (and I'm a moron who uses ad hominems, I imagine).

[Zukunftsmusik]

Holy fucking shit. Is there some rule here on RevLeft where it is encouraged to set up and beat down straw men? Good lord.

I don't think I'm setting up a straw man, though. You did put forth the idea. Notice that putting forth an idea is not the same as supporting something.


The Idiot's Guide version of my post: we need to move the conversation in a direction that doesn't brickwall at "Don't support your home country's bombing activities." Fine, that's not up for debate. No one here does. Because of that, it's a non-starter. The question should be, what should the radical left community do?

For starters, there's a difference between "not supporting" and opposing. The latter points towards a concrete practical activity.


The questions I asked about the PKK, or Iraqi and Syrian communists were examples..not proposals. If they aren't acceptable people to support in a struggle like this, then who would be?

I think the question starts in the wrong end. First of all we should ask ourselves what is going on and what effects this has on the prospects of class unity and consciousness. I think the way you pose this is in the vein of your sentiment above that the left isn't relevant enough. The question is a lot more conpliated than that: at the worst this could end in making really bad decisions with horrible effects in hope of being "relevant".

[Zukunftsmusik]

you incredibly stupid jackass.

you incredibly stupid jackass.


Nope, you incredibly stupid jackass



you incredibly stupid jackass.

Surely, this counts as flaming?


I do adhere to council communism. Nothing I've said has run contrary to that.

Well Paul Mattick, for one, would disagree. https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1935/war-america.htm

[Creative Destruction]

I don't think I'm setting up a straw man, though. You did put forth the idea. Notice that putting forth an idea is not the same as supporting something.

No, the only idea I put forth is to steer the conversation in a direction other than revleft pablum. How do you feel about yourself when you lie?


I think the question starts in the wrong end. First of all we should ask ourselves what is going on and what effects this has on the prospects of class unity and consciousness.

And what effects do you think this has on the prospects of class unity and consciousness?

[Creative Destruction]

Well Paul Mattick, for one, would disagree. https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1935/war-america.htm

Considering I don't disagree with anything Mattick said there, I don't see how this is supposed to support your point. The only thing it does prove is that you were actually constructing a strawman. I'm not "moved" to support the United States in anything and I don't think they should be bombing Iraq or Syria. So, when are you going to put this straw-argument to rest and actually deal with the points that I've made? Or is all you intend to do is lie about my position?

[Creative Destruction]

For what it's worth, I did some digging around on the Iraqi Communist Party. Per Levy's main complaint seemed to be that they supported the US invasion in Iraq, but I can't find anything on that. So, Per Levy: if you can provide a source for that claim, it'd be appreciated.

[Devrim]

What use is it to have a conversation with you if you're going to straight-up, baldface lie?

If I had written something and more than one person took it to mean something other than I intended, I would go back and read it again to see if I had expressed myself clearly before I started calling people liars and threw abuse at them. I have just read through them again, and find it difficult to read them any other way.

Devrim

[Creative Destruction]

If I had written something and more than one person took it to mean something other than I intended, I would go back and read it again to see if I had expressed myself clearly before I started calling people liars and threw abuse at them. I have just read through them again, and find it difficult to read them any other way.

Devrim

And yet there is nothing in my post that indicates that I support what my country has done. It's not like multiple people couldn't have willful misreadings with an opinion they disagree with or anything.

[Red Terror Dr.]

Something huge is going to happen against the USA because the people on the wrong end of American bombs and bullets will not take this lying down.

[Rafiq]

Holy fucking shit. Is there some rule here on RevLeft where it is encouraged to set up and beat down straw men? Good lord.

The Idiot's Guide version of my post: we need to move the conversation in a direction that doesn't brickwall at "Don't support your home country's bombing activities." Fine, that's not up for debate. No one here does. Because of that, it's a non-starter. The question should be, what should the radical left community do? The questions I asked about the PKK, or Iraqi and Syrian communists were examples..not proposals. If they aren't acceptable people to support in a struggle like this, then who would be? I'd even be fine with an answer, at the end of it all, "Well, there's nothing we really can do as Western leftists" but after some sort of discussion and hashing shit out.

There is nothing the "radical left community" can do. Our support, condemnation or even neutrality is absolutely worthless and insignificant. There is nothing the Communists can do, because there isn't a Communist movement to begin with - nay the less one that can make impactful decisions with regard to the endeavours of the state, domestic or abroad.

What can honest, committed intellectuals (who may or may not be working people) do? Fight for the revival of Communism, and for universality. Fight for a new Communism single mindedly without the baggage of previous sectarian "politics", or anything that binds you to the old. Make yourself devoted to the crusade to save our heroes and predecessors from historical damnation, and struggle for the spectres of our dead to finally find peace among the living in the next revolution.

The left has lost its heart. It is not that these people with good intentions can't find support. It is that their intentions are wrong, the foundations of their beliefs are wrong. Do you want to grow and die in a world where the October revolution will go down in history as ammunition for national chauvinists in Russia and nothing more? Do you want to watch our wretched world descend into barbarism by which Communism cannot even have an ideological or political place? There is no hand of history that will pave the way for us. Communism can rot in the dustbin of history without the will of Communists.

This isn't just about stopping genocide. Islamism will never be defeated by Liberalism. Even if they squash ISIS, the Islamists won either way. This is about a battle for universality. Bullets and bombs will not quell the notion that the war is between God's will and the infidels, the community of the faithful against the wicked, decadent and corrupt. Do you want to live in a world where the French revolution is remembered as a Satanic conspiracy? What the world needs to know is the infallibility of the gods of the revolution. That only our cause is holy and true.

Only a universal war of the exploited can stop ISIS, only such a war can water the Earth with the blood of the billionaires and royalty of the gulf, the mullahs of Iran and their toadies - only a red crusade can rid the world of the Islamist filth.

But who are these countries which intend on bombing ISIS? Is it France, where the rise of neofascism poses a greater threat than the conflicts of the Near east? Is it the UK, where the problem is identical? Oh, excuse me - is it his majesty and the Arab league? Who are these "saviors" who will restore order and peace to the Levant, it would seem order and peace is needed in their own fucking countries.

This isn't 2004. We are at the most historically fatal moment in the history of human civilization. There is no functioning, uncontested world state apparatus anymore. It is on the brink of mutation. The "civilized, secular" Western world is on the brink of hell. Global multicultural liberalism is in total and utter retreat universally. You must know it. You can feel the coming storm on the tip of your fingers. The ugly head of capital is once again going to rear its head. The legitimacy of the existing political order is waning. And it is making room for a monster.

What can the Communists do? Start anew.

[Raquin]

Consequences of the first American invasion of Iraq: Zarqawi's little shortbus crew of Wahhabi cultists turned into one of the world's most impressive insurgencies, and then, into a full-fledged state carved out of Syria and Iraq.

Consequences of American intervention in Libya: previously secular peaceful country broken up into Wahhabi City-States, Wahhabi Emirates(no, seriously, Libya's second biggest city has been conquered by ISIS-aligned Wahhabis like Ansar al-Sharia and they proclaimed a sovereign Islamic Emirate there), and some territory held by a wannabe military dictator.

Consequences of American intervention in Syria: half of the previously secular peaceful country turned into half a thousand different fiefdoms ruled by Wahhabi warlords.

There's a pattern here. We can only dread what will be the result of another American military campaign in Iraq. American intervention always leads to Wahhabi rats multiplying at an exponential rate.

[Lily Briscoe]

So, turn away from that kind of kneejerk response. We're all anti-imperialist.
I don't know why you assume this. I have seen a number of posts on this board justifying US intervention in relation to ISIS, and in person, I have seen a lot of people who identify as 'socialists', who I never would have expected to support a US military campaign, get on board with this. So no, I don't think it is a given that "we're all 'anti-imperialist'" at all.

[khad]

There's a pattern here. We can only dread what will be the result of another American military campaign in Iraq. American intervention always leads to Wahhabi rats multiplying at an exponential rate.
Any coalition that includes the gulf states is not going to undermine terrorism, if any of you are hoping for that.

nA39iVSo7XE

[ckaihatsu]

Just yesterday, there were reports coming out of Hasakah that the Kurdish YPG executed 45 "civilians" (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ar&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aljazeera.net%2Fnews%2Farabic%2 F2014%2F9%2F14%2F%25D9%2585%25D9%2584%25D9%258A%25 D8%25B4%25D9%258A%25D8%25A7%25D8%25AA-%25D9%2583%25D8%25B1%25D8%25AF%25D9%258A%25D8%25A9-%25D8%25AA%25D8%25B1%25D8%25AA%25D9%2583%25D8%25A8-%25D9%2585%25D8%25AC%25D8%25B2%25D8%25B1%25D8%25A9-%25D8%25A8%25D8%25B1%25D9%258A%25D9%2581-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25AD%25D8%25B3%25D9%2583 %25D8%25A9&edit-text=&act=url) in a village raid. I put that in quotation marks because I haven't seen all the bodies to ascertain whether or not they were civilians or militants. What I do know is that Tal Hamis is a forward position used by the Islamic State to pressure Qamishli. And in the recently-liberated town of Amerli in Iraq, (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/09/us-iraq-security-consequences-idUSKBN0H40B820140909) you hear similar reports of "civilian" executions and mass expulsions by local Shia and Kurdish forces.

Since these various local militias that the USA is keen on supporting don't have the power to effectively police areas retaken from the Islamic State, it shouldn't be all that surprising that they would resort to wholesale removal of these populations. And since these local militias (who have every reason to get payback for the atrocities committed against them) are such a cornerstone of Obama's "coalition" to defeat IS, you can probably expect more of this in the future.

If you say you want to destroy the Islamic State, then just say you want to kill them and drown their children in the Euprhates. If you can't accept civilian casualties, then just don't go to war or prance around beating the drums. Trying to cloak the reasons for war in humanitarian baggage is just pathetic, in my opinion. The only question is whose civilians die for whose military objectives.

Are those military objectives ultimately worth it? And for whom? Ending IS, toppling the Syrian government, independent Kurdistan, further embargoes on Iran, stop Saudi terror funding, etc... What's the endgame here, and who's going to pick up the pieces?

Just what are the objectives here? I really don't see discussion of this in concrete terms, not from the left, and certainly not from the Obama regime--as tempting as it is to just throw bombs at whatever bad shit seems to be happening.


I'll agree that things are getting even-more, increasingly complicated and messy.

What I'd *like* to see would be the U.S. cleanly cutting out the IS strictly with an air campaign, not affecting any civilians, not attempting to build any geopolitical coalitions in the region, and then, at the end of it, removing its presence altogether so that the various internal populations can deal correctly with the strongmen of their respective countries, through revolts and revolution.

What it's *looking like*, though, is further U.S. meddling, in whatever forms -- the shining epitome of opportunism in the region, in other words.

I'm admittedly at a loss, aside from a generic, pro-forma revolutionary defeatism.

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/09/17/iraq-s17.html

[MarxSchmarx]

There is nothing the "radical left community" can do. Our support, condemnation or even neutrality is absolutely worthless and insignificant. There is nothing the Communists can do, because there isn't a Communist movement to begin with - nay the less one that can make impactful decisions with regard to the endeavours of the state, domestic or abroad.

What can honest, committed intellectuals (who may or may not be working people) do? Fight for the revival of Communism, and for universality. Fight for a new Communism single mindedly without the baggage of previous sectarian "politics", or anything that binds you to the old. Make yourself devoted to the crusade to save our heroes and predecessors from historical damnation, and struggle for the spectres of our dead to finally find peace among the living in the next revolution.

The left has lost its heart. It is not that these people with good intentions can't find support. It is that their intentions are wrong, the foundations of their beliefs are wrong. Do you want to grow and die in a world where the October revolution will go down in history as ammunition for national chauvinists in Russia and nothing more? Do you want to watch our wretched world descend into barbarism by which Communism cannot even have an ideological or political place? There is no hand of history that will pave the way for us. Communism can rot in the dustbin of history without the will of Communists.

This isn't just about stopping genocide. Islamism will never be defeated by Liberalism. Even if they squash ISIS, the Islamists won either way. This is about a battle for universality. Bullets and bombs will not quell the notion that the war is between God's will and the infidels, the community of the faithful against the wicked, decadent and corrupt. Do you want to live in a world where the French revolution is remembered as a Satanic conspiracy? What the world needs to know is the infallibility of the gods of the revolution. That only our cause is holy and true.

Only a universal war of the exploited can stop ISIS, only such a war can water the Earth with the blood of the billionaires and royalty of the gulf, the mullahs of Iran and their toadies - only a red crusade can rid the world of the Islamist filth.

But who are these countries which intend on bombing ISIS? Is it France, where the rise of neofascism poses a greater threat than the conflicts of the Near east? Is it the UK, where the problem is identical? Oh, excuse me - is it his majesty and the Arab league? Who are these "saviors" who will restore order and peace to the Levant, it would seem order and peace is needed in their own fucking countries.

This isn't 2004. We are at the most historically fatal moment in the history of human civilization. There is no functioning, uncontested world state apparatus anymore. It is on the brink of mutation. The "civilized, secular" Western world is on the brink of hell. Global multicultural liberalism is in total and utter retreat universally. You must know it. You can feel the coming storm on the tip of your fingers. The ugly head of capital is once again going to rear its head. The legitimacy of the existing political order is waning. And it is making room for a monster.

What can the Communists do? Start anew.

I do like the thrust of your message (see my last blog post from years ago for a similar point) and agree with your conclusions about the broader movement; but I disagree with your analysis.

Capitalism (I wouldn't call it "multicultural liberalism", as it is led basically by the USA and its closest allies) has proven incredibly corrosive at breaking down ideologies hostile to it. Marx recognized this in the context of 19th century Europe and he has been proven incredibly correct in other contexts.

Historical materialism is a powerful force. Even ideologies like Bolshevism which proved premature in the former eastern bloc could not survive the onslaught. Christianity has vanished as a meaningful social force from most of Europe as has Buddhism in east Asia, and religion is on its way out even in America.

There is no reason "Islamism" or any other pre-capitalist ideology would be exempt from this trend. Right now they are buoyed by incredible wealth borne of the west's dependence on the fossil fuels. And even independent that there will be occasional moments of reactionaries succeeding, as there are in any culture (e.g., G. W. Bush in America winning "values voters" or Japan's prime minister visiting Yasukuni). But these kinds of things are the dying gasps of non-capitalist ideologies.

[Rafiq]

I do like the thrust of your message (see my last blog post from years ago for a similar point) and agree with your conclusions about the broader movement; but I disagree with your analysis.

Capitalism (I wouldn't call it "multicultural liberalism", as it is led basically by the USA and its closest allies) has proven incredibly corrosive at breaking down ideologies hostile to it. Marx recognized this in the context of 19th century Europe and he has been proven incredibly correct in other contexts.

Historical materialism is a powerful force. Even ideologies like Bolshevism which proved premature in the former eastern bloc could not survive the onslaught. Christianity has vanished as a meaningful social force from most of Europe as has Buddhism in east Asia, and religion is on its way out even in America.

There is no reason "Islamism" or any other pre-capitalist ideology would be exempt from this trend. Right now they are buoyed by incredible wealth borne of the west's dependence on the fossil fuels. And even independent that there will be occasional moments of reactionaries succeeding, as there are in any culture (e.g., G. W. Bush in America winning "values voters" or Japan's prime minister visiting Yasukuni). But these kinds of things are the dying gasps of non-capitalist ideologies.

You're right, but the point is that Islamism is not a pre-capitalist ideology. The Islamism of ISIS is an ideology of capital. What we are seeing is not those challenging the rule of capital - rather (and, similarly to 20th century Fascism) different degenerate ideologies of capital, which represent potential fundamental changes in the political order vying for power over the universal state apparatus. ISIS is not a case of indigenous barbarians versus the onslaught of capitalism. ISIS is the onslaught of capitalism itself - Islamism itself, as a matter of fact, dating from the Muslim brotherhood is a perfectly capitalist ideology.

So the point isn't that I'm confusing multicultural Liberalism with capitalism - but that the victory of Islamism does not mean the end of capitalism, but the end of multicultural Liberalism.

[MarxSchmarx]

You're right, but the point is that Islamism is not a pre-capitalist ideology. The Islamism of ISIS is an ideology of capital. What we are seeing is not those challenging the rule of capital - rather (and, similarly to 20th century Fascism) different degenerate ideologies of capital, which represent potential fundamental changes in the political order vying for power over the universal state apparatus. ISIS is not a case of indigenous barbarians versus the onslaught of capitalism. ISIS is the onslaught of capitalism itself - Islamism itself, as a matter of fact, dating from the Muslim brotherhood is a perfectly capitalist ideology.

So the point isn't that I'm confusing multicultural Liberalism with capitalism - but that the victory of Islamism does not mean the end of capitalism, but the end of multicultural Liberalism.

Yes you are quite correct that Islamism, or at least Wahabism, is distinctly modern, almost capitalistic, insofar as it did not exist in anything like its current form until the challenge of western hegemony was upon it.

It is still important to understand that reactionary ideologies can be as responsive to social change as progressive ideologies, but that doesn't make them any less reactionary. They arise, almost by definition, as reactions to the forces of social change. This was arguably the story of the Prussian monarchy which Marx studied so closely for decades. And both of us agree that these sorts of phenomena have compelling parallels to 20th century fascism.

Having said this, I have little doubt that were something like ISIL able to maintain itself, it would adopt capitalist practices at the expense of its stated beliefs. This is exactly what Saudi Arabia has done.

The issue is that such capitalist beliefs cannot help but undermine the legitimacy of non-capitalist sources of power (i.e., the religious establishment). At first, this might seem like relatively mundane issues like permitting interest to allow the issuance of corporate bonds, but the only destination they can reach, in the long term, is to corrode patriarchical practices, clan loyalties, and other pre-capitalist vestiges. This has happened in every capitalist economy, from Korea to Tunisia, there is no reason to believe the Islamists will be an exception.

Perhaps where we differ is that I don't think ideologies like "Islamism" can be victorious, at least in any meaningful or sustainable sense.

[Lily Briscoe]

So the point isn't that I'm confusing multicultural Liberalism with capitalism - but that the victory of Islamism does not mean the end of capitalism, but the end of multicultural Liberalism.

And "multicultural liberalism" is what, exactly?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

And "multicultural liberalism" is what, exactly?

The views that liberal democratic capitalism is essentially a force with universal appeal which draws on people of all cultures and makes equal space for them. The assumption that a liberal, multicultural society is achievable in a modern capitalist global economy and is effectively the end of historical development is problematized when Marie LePen, Vladimir Putin and Victor Orban are emerging as serious political contenders out of the last great epoch of liberal expansion.

The point is that no matter how noble the intentions of the liberal multiculturalist, liberal capitalism cannot produce the kind of society he desires. What we need is socialism, not mild liberal reforms

[ckaihatsu]

The views that liberal democratic capitalism is essentially a force with universal appeal which draws on people of all cultures and makes equal space for them. The assumption that a liberal, multicultural society is achievable in a modern capitalist global economy and is effectively the end of historical development is problematized when Marie LePen, Vladimir Putin and Victor Orban are emerging as serious political contenders out of the last great epoch of liberal expansion.

The point is that no matter how noble the intentions of the liberal multiculturalist, liberal capitalism cannot produce the kind of society he desires. What we need is socialism, not mild liberal reforms


I'll posit that, in the current absence of outright neocon-type hawkishness, the national -- and even world -- cultural paradigm becomes one of 'multiculturalism', at best, which is also synonymous with 'identity politics':





[W]hen people *extend* their identity into a set of political views that they then actively subscribe to, they've effectively *made* their identity into their politics -- 'identity politics'.

(Which, btw, I contend is the *furthest left* the state's politics can ever go.)

[ckaihatsu]

Good position piece:


---


Update: 5 things you need to know about the president’s rush to war in Iraq and Syria




Dear Chris,

A terrible situation in Iraq and Syria may soon get worse.

Last week both the House and the Senate rushed to pass a bill authorizing the president to train and arm so-called "moderate" Syrian rebels.1

CREDO members reported pouring well over 3,000 calls into their representatives and senators. But, in the end, the majority of Democrats joined with Republicans to rubberstamp the president’s proposal.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which is already fighting with American weapons it captured from the Iraqi military, could likely be the main beneficiary of Congress’ rush to war. The shifting, opportunistic alliances and fragmented opposition in the Syrian civil war make it virtually inevitable that American-funded rebels will end up fighting alongside Sunni extremists like ISIS. They'll bring their American weapons with them, and those weapons may well be trained on American targets.

This is eerily reminiscent of the CIA operation in the 1980s to arm and train the Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet invasion -- a fighting force that with the help of U.S. aid evolved into the Taliban and launched al Qaeda into the world.

Congress’ decision will make America less safe and fuel further violence in the Syrian civil war and in Iraq.

Funding and arming the Syrian rebels is the first part of President Obama’s plan to fight ISIS by opening a new American front in Iraq and Syria. Our movement may have lost this round, but it’s a wake up call for the anti-war movement to organize and stop the Obama administration and Congress from repeating the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan. We must not end up entangled in yet another costly and unwinnable war that makes Americans less, not more, safe.

There are five things you need to know about the president’s plan to go to war with ISIS in Iraq and Syria:

1. The main fight over whether we go to war in Syria and Iraq is going to happen in Congress in December over a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force to renew George W. Bush’s blank check for war.

Congress is widely expected to debate and vote on whether to give President Obama the authority to wage a sustained, multi-year war against ISIS during the December "lame duck" session, once the pressures of election season have subsided. This will come in the form of an Authorization for Use of Military Force (or AUMF). Senator Dick Durbin has already announced that the Senate will debate and vote on a new AUMF for Iraq and Syria after the 2014 midterm elections.2

Will Congress write a blank check for war like it gave George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq? Will it approve a limited intervention that expires after a short time limit, bans the president from putting troops on the ground, and includes significant Congressional oversight? Or will it vote to block the administration from starting a war with Syria and expanding the war in Iraq? What happens will depend on us, and whether we can organize strong opposition in the run up to the 2016 presidential election. In fact, several presidential hopefuls voted against arming the rebels, foreshadowing what could be a major issue in both Republican and Democratic party primaries for the presidency.

Our best shot to stop another blank check for war is in the Senate, where Democrats hold a narrow majority. The Senate is threatened with a Tea Party takeover if Republicans can win six seats in the November mid-terms. If that happens, it will make a tough fight to stop another war dramatically more difficult. That’s why earlier this year CREDO SuperPAC launched the Save the Senate, volunteer voter contact campaign to organize thousands of volunteers to get out the progressive vote in five key battleground states and stop a Tea Party takeover of the Senate.

President Obama's publicly stated position is that he doesn't need authorization from Congress to go to war with ISIS.3 Instead, he has claimed that the outrageously broad 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) -- passed at the behest of George W. Bush just days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- grants him sufficient authority to launch airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.

This is a dramatic flip-flop for President Obama, who campaigned for president on a platform that included winding down George W. Bush’s disastrous wars of choice overseas, and last year called for the repeal of the very same 2001 AUMF that he is now using to justify bombing Iraq and Syria.

Anti-war activists must urge Congress to vote against authorizing the president's new war in Iraq and Syria. Congress rejecting authorization is no guarantee that the president won't still go to war in Iraq and Syria -- but it's the best shot we have to stop his plan for war.

2. This war is going to get much bigger and include ground troops if progressives don't organize a major campaign to stop it.

President Obama's war plan is to attempt to "degrade and destroy" ISIS by arming and training "moderate" Syrian rebels and launching sustained airstrikes in Syria and Iraq. He's also deployed 1,600 "military advisors" in Iraq to assist the Iraqi government and the Kurds as they battle ISIS -- and that number is likely to grow.

Secretary of State John Kerry has said that the war against ISIS could last for three years, making it clear that the war to destroy ISIS is an open-ended commitment to U.S. military action in the region.4

Obama's plan puts the United States on a slippery slope to a drastically escalated war. It's certain that war hawks will push for a U.S.-led ground war once airstrikes don't immediately resolve the conflict.

While President Obama has declared that no ground troops will be deployed, his top military advisors say different. Joints Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey has already said that he would recommend using American ground troops against ISIS if the current strategy is unsuccessful -- which we know it will be.5 Gen. Ray Odierno, Army Chief of Staff, has said publicly that ground troops would be necessary to defeat ISIS.6

Even without U.S. troops on the ground, airstrikes threaten to drag the United States into a massive conflict with Bashar al-Assad, in addition to ISIS. President Obama has reportedly pledged to retaliate against the Syrian government if it fires on U.S. war planes.7 If that happens, the United States would simultaneously be fighting against two sides of the Syrian civil war: ISIS and President Bashar al-Assad's government. That's a recipe for disaster and further instability, which will only make ISIS stronger.

3. The war against ISIS is a war of choice. There is no urgency driving an American response at this moment. Even according to the Department of Homeland Security, ISIS poses no immediate threat to the United States.8

There is no immediate crisis as there was in August when CREDO supported the emergency U.S. air strikes that blocked the genocidal ISIS and helped protect minorities by holding the Kurdish defense line in Northern Iraq.9 Since then, the situation in Iraq has stabilized, and Iraq has formed a new government, replacing the corrupt and divisive former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The civil war in Syria is stuck in a bloody stalemate. The current media frenzy that has been ginned-up largely by chickenhawks from the Bush administration and parroted by politicians from both parties is not an adequate justification for the United States to continue its intervention in either Iraq or Syria.

Despite rampant alarmism from war hawks and media pundits, ISIS is a relatively small extremist group surrounded on all sides by formidable enemies like Iran, Syria, the Kurds and the Iraqi government.

4. The sad and simple truth is that the United States cannot lead any intervention without making a terrible situation even worse.

When it comes to the current brutal conflict, rooted in centuries of religious hostilities in Iraq and Syria, there is no solution that American leadership can offer. Unfortunately, at this point in the conflict there is no viable campaign for peace and stability initiated by any other international or regional actor that the U.S. can join in support.

Given America’s history of waging wars of aggression and covert operations in the region, we are in no position to lead the way in resolving the current conflicts in Iraq and Syria. Regional players have the power to make a difference -- especially Turkey, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq’s own government. But at this juncture a U.S.-led military intervention would harm, not help, their ability to broker a solution.

The bottom line is that there is no simple American solution to this messy conflict, and anyone who says there is is deeply deluded.

5. Anti-war progressives can fight back. We did it a year ago and we can do it again, but we’ll need your help.

It was just over a year ago that Congress, under massive pressure from progressives across the country, rejected President Obama's proposal to launch airstrikes against Syria. Leaders in this fight included progressive members of Congress like Reps. Alan Grayson, Rick Nolan and Barbara Lee. CREDO was the first large progressive group to come out against bombing Syria, and CREDO members helped provide the massive grassroots pressure necessary to help them turn their colleagues against war.

Members of the House who were expected to rubberstamp the president's resolution authorizing military force in Syria received an unprecedented number of phone calls opposing strikes against Syria -- including almost 40,000 reported by CREDO members. One-by-one, members of Congress started to come out against the attack. While it was widely believed that the president and Majority Leader Harry Reid had the necessary votes in the Senate to approve bombing Syria, Democratic Senators Tom Udall and Chris Murphy stepped up and opposed a resolution authorizing military action in Syria in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The tide turned in the Senate, and soon the press was reporting that opposition outnumbered support by 2 to 1.

But since last fall when we successfully rejected war with Syria, war hawks have exploited ISIS's military successes and brutal crimes in Iraq and Syria, including the beheading of three journalists, to increase pressure on President Obama to go to war.

The only way to stop the march to war is to raise our voices again and make it clear to President Obama that his progressive base will not support war in Syria, or expanded conflict in Iraq. We’ve done it before, we can do it again -- anti-war progressives can cut through the hype and alarmism and put the brakes on our president's rush to war.

You’ll be hearing from us in the coming months asking you to take action to stop this next war -- from signing petitions and making phone calls, to organizing meetings with your representatives and hitting the streets in protest. It will take massive pushback, but if we fight together we can win.

It's going to take a full-court press from progressives to stop President Obama from starting a third Iraq war. And we need your help to pull it off.

If you haven’t signed and forwarded to your friends our petition to President Obama saying no to this war, do it now.

If you haven’t called all of your representatives in Congress and the White House, make a call now.

Share this update with your friends and family.

Chip in now to help CREDO launch a sustained campaign to stop this war before we once again have combat troops on the ground.
Thank you for all that you do.

Zack Malitz, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

1. Paul Kane and Ed O'Keefe, "Senate votes to approve Obama’s plan to fight Islamist militants," The Washington Post, September 18, 2014
2. Alexander Bolton, "Senate Dems to debate force vote against ISIS after the election," The Hill, September 18, 2014
3. Stephen Braun, "Can Obama Wage War Without Consent of Congress?" AP, September 12, 2014
4. Eric Schmitt, Michael R. Gordon, and Helene Cooper, "Destroying ISIS May Take Years, U.S. Officials Say," September 7, 2014
5. Jeremy Herb, "Martin Dempsey: Ground troops possible," Politico, September 16, 2014
6. Alison Smale, "U.S. Army Chief Says Ground Troops Will Be Needed Against ISIS," New York Times, September 17, 2014
7. Peter Baker, "Paths to War, Then and Now, Haunt Obama," New York Times, September 13, 2014
8. Rogue Planas, "DHS Doesn't Think ISIS Is Plotting Attack Through U.S.-Mexico Border," Huffington Post, September 11, 2014
9. Michael Kieschnick, president of CREDO Mobile, "President Obama Is Right to Block the Genocidal ISIS and Hold the Kurdish Defense Line," Huffington Post, August 8, 2014


© 2014 CREDO. All rights reserved.

[Rafiq]

It is still important to understand that reactionary ideologies can be as responsive to social change as progressive ideologies, but that doesn't make them any less reactionary. They arise, almost by definition, as reactions to the forces of social change. This was arguably the story of the Prussian monarchy which Marx studied so closely for decades.

This is a very good point. It is undeniable that the forefarthers of ISIL - salafist Islamism was born as a result of the onslaught of globalized capitalism and the cultural changes of its implications.

Having said that, the problem with Islamism, or at least the Islamism of ISIS (and Al Queda) - is that it is not actually an organic expression of conservative, even reactionary classes in the Middle East. I remember Sasha linked an article which basically details how a western convert to Islam, upon studying in Pakistan - was given the advice by a conservative Muslim patriarch not to bother with the Jihadi adventures organized by Islamists. Even in Afghanistan, the reactionary tribal patriarchs and landowners are not necessarily predispoed to transnational Islamism. ISIL is not grounded in any legitimate, established and socially contextual religious establishment, which is why even the most vile of of the Muslim clergy are keen on condemning them.

The point is not that ISIL directly is a meaningful social expression. It is that ISIL is an ideological expression of Islamism as an ideology of capital - Islamism as an ideological universe which contends for control over the world state apparatus (much like Fascism). I great bulk of ISIL is compromised of foreign jihadis born of absolutely no social context in the region in which they operate. Even then, Islam was not nearly as much of a 'big deal' before the "Islamic revival" in the Middle East - the veil was rare in major sprawling cities (I remember reading that in Damascus, during the 1960's nay more a handful of women wore it), drinking was common and so forth - the pre-existing conservative Muslim elements either died off, or mutated into something like Salafist Islamism.

Islamism is certainly an affirmative ideological force. It may parasitically rely on the hegemony of globalized capitalism - but only up to a point. Paradoxically, this parasitic relationship becomes affirmative and no longer dependent on being a negative force. Certainly ISIL represents that there is ambiguity regarding the phenomena of Islamism - but it is still a result of the phenomena of Islamism which is distinctly a capitalist ideology. Islamism arose as a result of the incompetence of Liberal democracy as a viable apparatus for Near eastern capitalist society (directly as a result of the failure of 20th century Communism and the collapse of the Socialist bloc). Islamism is the paradox of the new world order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics)#The_Malta_Conference), it is the ideological void that tears through the dream of the post-communist hegemony of Liberalism - it reveals the inconsistency, hypocrisy and overall falseness of claims that "Communism is dead".

The scary thing about Islamism is that it is distinctly not a pre-capitalist ideology - it is not residue of centuries old practices and customs waiting to be washed away by the social onslaught of capitalism - what is scary is that this Islamism irrevocably is one and the same with the social onslaught of global capitalism. It is a distinctly capitalist ideology with its own affirmative ideological universe that is capable of residing over a new capitalist society. The same darkness that spawned the American religious revival, the same darkness that gave rise to European national chauvinsim and neofascism, the same darkness that gave us the Ukrainian conflict gave us Islamism. It is the degeneracy of capitalist politics itself - it is the barbarism that Luxemburg spoke of, incomparable with anything we have known in the past (besides, of course, Fascism).

But again, it is important to know that Islamism is very ambiguous - besides cosmetically there is very little Iranian Islamism (which in turn means shia Islamism in general, as a rule, i.e. Shia Islamism being an extension of Iranian interests) has to do with Sunni Islamism (though they both resulted from very similar factors).

[Red Son]

UK parliament 'debating' air strikes on IS / ISIL -

bbc -dot -co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-29362884?live_variant=nonjs

Everyone, save Galloway, seems behind the notion that they constitute a enough of a threat to at least start bombing and even send in troops. Labour, Lib Dems and Tories all bleeting from the same 'just war' hymn sheet...yuck.

[MarxSchmarx]

This is a very good point. It is undeniable that the forefarthers of ISIL - salafist Islamism was born as a result of the onslaught of globalized capitalism and the cultural changes of its implications.

Having said that, the problem with Islamism, or at least the Islamism of ISIS (and Al Queda) - is that it is not actually an organic expression of conservative, even reactionary classes in the Middle East. I remember Sasha linked an article which basically details how a western convert to Islam, upon studying in Pakistan - was given the advice by a conservative Muslim patriarch not to bother with the Jihadi adventures organized by Islamists. Even in Afghanistan, the reactionary tribal patriarchs and landowners are not necessarily predispoed to transnational Islamism. ISIL is not grounded in any legitimate, established and socially contextual religious establishment, which is why even the most vile of of the Muslim clergy are keen on condemning them.

The point is not that ISIL directly is a meaningful social expression. It is that ISIL is an ideological expression of Islamism as an ideology of capital - Islamism as an ideological universe which contends for control over the world state apparatus (much like Fascism). I great bulk of ISIL is compromised of foreign jihadis born of absolutely no social context in the region in which they operate. Even then, Islam was not nearly as much of a 'big deal' before the "Islamic revival" in the Middle East - the veil was rare in major sprawling cities (I remember reading that in Damascus, during the 1960's nay more a handful of women wore it), drinking was common and so forth - the pre-existing conservative Muslim elements either died off, or mutated into something like Salafist Islamism.

Islamism is certainly an affirmative ideological force. It may parasitically rely on the hegemony of globalized capitalism - but only up to a point. Paradoxically, this parasitic relationship becomes affirmative and no longer dependent on being a negative force. Certainly ISIL represents that there is ambiguity regarding the phenomena of Islamism - but it is still a result of the phenomena of Islamism which is distinctly a capitalist ideology. Islamism arose as a result of the incompetence of Liberal democracy as a viable apparatus for Near eastern capitalist society (directly as a result of the failure of 20th century Communism and the collapse of the Socialist bloc). Islamism is the paradox of the new world order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics)#The_Malta_Conference), it is the ideological void that tears through the dream of the post-communist hegemony of Liberalism - it reveals the inconsistency, hypocrisy and overall falseness of claims that "Communism is dead".

The scary thing about Islamism is that it is distinctly not a pre-capitalist ideology - it is not residue of centuries old practices and customs waiting to be washed away by the social onslaught of capitalism - what is scary is that this Islamism irrevocably is one and the same with the social onslaught of global capitalism. It is a distinctly capitalist ideology with its own affirmative ideological universe that is capable of residing over a new capitalist society. The same darkness that spawned the American religious revival, the same darkness that gave rise to European national chauvinsim and neofascism, the same darkness that gave us the Ukrainian conflict gave us Islamism. It is the degeneracy of capitalist politics itself - it is the barbarism that Luxemburg spoke of, incomparable with anything we have known in the past (besides, of course, Fascism).

But again, it is important to know that Islamism is very ambiguous - besides cosmetically there is very little Iranian Islamism (which in turn means shia Islamism in general, as a rule, i.e. Shia Islamism being an extension of Iranian interests) has to do with Sunni Islamism (though they both resulted from very similar factors).

Rafiq: If I understand you correctly (although I'm not sure I do), then I more or less agree that capitalist reaction gets dressed up in the reactionary ideology de jour, whether that be Islamic fundemantalism in the middle east or nationalism in eastern Europe.

But what does that analysis mean for the day to day struggle? Does it mean we should struggle against islamism the same way we struggle against, say, Tory-ism or neoliberalism in general?

Here I think there is a reason for distinguishing the two. A first, and perhaps some what reductionist, view is that the west and neoliberalism will operate as it does whether or not groups like ISIL exist. So the critique must go beyond the contingent reality that a bunch of nuts in the middle east have done what the western crazies have been doing for decades with fascism and whatnot.

But perhaps a more meaningful response is that ideologies like ISIL, much as racism, homophobia and other social discimination in the global north, require their own critique and "struggle against" which is rooted in identifying their "extra-capitalist" stronghold on the ideology of privileged groups within their societies. In other words, just as, say, the struggle against the American Christian Right cannot be reduced to an entirely economic struggle, so to cannot the struggle against groups like ISIL be entirely reduced to an anti-capitalist struggle. Understanding that we cannot "reduce" ISIL to capitalism any more than we can reduce, say, white supremacy to capitalism, this will open up new avenues of struggle against a group like ISIL that would not be available otherwise.

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.legitgov.org/#breaking_news

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930825001416


Thursday 20 Nov 2014 / Tehran - 19:21 / GMT - 15:51

Old FNA

Ar | En | Fa | Tr HomePolitico-DefenseWorld CupEconomySociety & CultureSci-TechWorldInterviews & CommentariesMultimedia All Stories

World

Sun Nov 16, 2014 6:55

Iraq Intel Report: US Planes Supplying ISIL with Weapons, Foodstuff
Iraq Intel Report: US Planes Supplying ISIL with Weapons, Foodstuff



TEHRAN (FNA)- Iraqi intelligence sources disclosed that US military planes have been supplying the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Takfiri terrorists with weapons and foodstuff under the guise of air raids on militants' positions.
The Iraqi forces have found out that the US aircraft usually airdrop arms and food cargoes for ISIL militants who collect them on the ground, Asia news agency quoted Iraqi army's intelligence officers as saying.

"The Iraqi intelligence sources reiterated that the US military planes have airdropped several aid cargoes for ISIL terrorists to help them resist the siege laid by the Iraqi army, security and popular forces," added the report.

On Saturday, Iraqi security sources disclosed that the ISIL terrorist group is using the state-of-the-art weapons which are only manufactured by the US and each of their bullets are worth thousands of dollars.

"What is important is that the US sends these weapons to only those that cooperate with the Pentagon and this indicates that the US plays a role in arming the ISIL," an Iraqi security source told FNA.

The source noted that the most important advantage of the US-made weapons used by the ISIL is that "these bullets pierce armored vehicles and kill the people inside the vehicle".

He said each of such bullets is worth $2,000, and added, "These weapons have killed many Iraqi military and volunteer forces so far."

The crisis in Iraq escalated after the ISIL militants took control of Mosul in a lightning advance on June 10, which was followed by the fall of Tikrit, located 140 kilometers (87 miles) Northwest of the capital, Baghdad.

Soldiers of the Iraqi army, popular forces and Kurdish Pishmarga troops have been engaged in heavy fighting with the militants on different fronts and have so far been able to push them back in several areas.











Related News
Source: ISIL Using US-Made Weapons
LATEST STORIES (44)
Bottom
Nazis With Beards, Hats & Dual Citizenship
Ferguson Chaos: Government Stereotyping African-Americans as Violent
French Militants Appear in New ISIL Video
London Student Demonstration Sees Arrests, Scuffles
Iranian Deputy FM Calls for Enhanced Economic Cooperation with Afghanistan
Official: Vietnam Eager to Continue Growing Cooperation with Iran
Iran, Kyrgyzstan Discuss Development of Economic Ties
US Unrest: Several Arrests in Ferguson
White House Orders Review of US Hostage Policy Following ISIL Executions
Speaker: Even Americans Admit Iran's Influential Role in Region
Iran Launches Hectic Diplomacy over Oil Prices
Nuclear Chief: Agreement with Russia Gives Iran Upper Hand in Talks with Powers
Swedish Court Rejects Assange Appeal to Revoke Arrest Warrant
Iran, Serbia Underscore Broadening of Economic Ties
Iraqi Forces Regain Control over Several Villages in Anbar
top 




Sections
HomeWorldPolitico-DefenseInterviewsEconomyMultimediaSociety & CultureAll StoriesSci-Tech
About
About us
Contact us

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

"News on US Imperialism, corpora-terrorism, and the New World Order" lol.

Why wouldn't this source name the weapon that uses these $2000 bullets? Seems like an odd thing to leave out

[John Nada]

Why wouldn't this source name the weapon that uses these $2000 bullets? Seems like an odd thing to leave outIt's the US military. They have $80 hammers, buying $2000 bullets wouldn't be too far out there.:lol:

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I have no doubt, It's just interesting that they somehow know how much the US pays for the bullet but apparently don't know the name of the weapon itself

[ckaihatsu]

Update / clarification on my position:

It's good to have a *general* anti-U.S.-war line regarding Iraq and Syria, in the sense of not infringing on the national sovereignty of those countries, such as they are.

But I remain very concerned with the expansionism of ISIS / ISIL, as with its newly founded 'Caliphate', and its religious fundamentalism and social intolerance generally. I don't think it's glib to term it a religious-style *fascism*, which is only going to fester and worsen as the black-hole of international politics in a worldwide worsening economic situation.

For *this* context I am taking a decidedly *neutral* position regarding U.S. / imperialist incursions against ISIS, because I think the Western powers are best-equipped to intervene in that situation, even though the actuality happens to be far less than what the Obama Administration promised, according to news reports -- see post #65.

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2015/01/03/374797005/after-making-waves-in-2014-isis-power-appears-to-ebb


After Making Waves In 2014, ISIS' Power Appears To Ebb

JANUARY 03, 2015 5:18 PM ET

Alice Fordham
ALICE FORDHAM

Twitter Instagram
Listen to the Story
All Things Considered 4 min 21 sec
Playlist
Download
Transcript

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/01/03/iraq-new-year_wide-fdcebe7265a3ca573a9c471bd2bc50cb7221b39a-s800-c85.jpg
Iraqi crowds cheer as the countdown and fireworks begin during a New Year's Day celebration at Firdos Square in Baghdad on Wednesday.

Hadi Mizban/AP

In the heat of summer in 2014, Baghdad was spooked. A third of Iraq was under the control of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, or ISIS. The extremist group thrived in the chaos of the Syrian civil war, then surged over the border into Iraq and took over the cities of Mosul and Tikrit. People worried the capital might be next.

Six months on, that's changed. On New Year's Eve, for instance, the usual midnight curfew was lifted and people partied in the streets and uploaded videos of themselves letting off fireworks.

Baghdadis say that change is because they feel the pushback against ISIS has begun in earnest.

"We're always optimistic, looking for the best," says Alia al-Taiee, at a Baghdad book market. What's encouraged her is a mass mobilization of volunteers to fight the extremists.

ISIS is a Sunni Muslim group; most of those who volunteered to fight against them were Shiite. But Alia and her sister Khaha want people from every religion and ethnicity in Iraq to sign up: Sunnis, Christians and Yazidis.

And of course, the fight against ISIS hasn't come just from Iraqis, or even just from their Iranian military allies. Over Iraq and Syria, since September, American warplanes have led a coalition's efforts to cripple ISIS with bombings. Now, Americans are training Iraqi troops to fight ISIS and say they'll do the same with the rebels they back in Syria.

Analyst Hisham al-Hashemi reckons the airstrikes have already had an impact.

"The coalition targeted some of the leadership at the organizational level," Hashemi says. "This has been the most painful attack on ISIS."

Hashemi says the group has lost three senior leaders and mid-level commanders. It's more difficult for them to move around freely, and oil fields — key sources of funding — have taken a pounding. Plus, his sources tell him the number of foreigners volunteering to join them has slumped.

"There are 80 percent fewer Arab and foreign recruits," he says. "ISIS lost all of this since the coalition announced the war."

U.S. commanders say they're debating hard with Iraqi counterparts about when to push ground troops into the ISIS-occupied areas — maybe the spring.

Maj. Gen. Dana Pittard thinks the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, the most populous ISIS-controlled city, should be taken back fast.

"We're just getting indications of morale problems," Pittard says. "And with the people that are in Mosul and seeing [ISIS], they say it's not more than a thousand there now; certainly no more than 2,000."

Pittard also says the extremists are losing local support because the people in Mosul are finding that ISIS does not govern very well. Analysts reckon the group's cachet depends on its being able to govern. But Pittard says in Mosul, Iraqi Kurdish soldiers have cut off ISIS' crucial supply lines so they can't provide fuel and clean water.

"They are clearly on the defensive, except a couple [of] tactical ambushes and a couple of small tactical counterattacks," he says, "but other than that, it's not like what we saw in June at all."

The extremists themselves constantly issue propaganda with ambitious plans for expansion and global attacks. As the international efforts to stop them get more organized, that's looking more farfetched. However, Iraqi analyst Hashemi says that doesn't mean they can't cause harm.

"They have more than 20,000 fighters in Iraq directly engaged in warfare and more than 40,000 fighters in sleeper cells," he says.

Under pressure, Hashemi thinks the group could go back underground, focusing on insurgent tactics like bombings. Meanwhile, in Syria, U.S.-led training of ground forces to fight ISIS is much slower, and complicated by the messy civil war there.

The group is likely to be weakened in 2015, but no one is betting on them being defeated entirely.

[ckaihatsu]

F.y.i., there's an exchange about this thread's subject matter at another thread, starting with this post:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2808552&postcount=18

[RevUK]

Update / clarification on my position:

It's good to have a *general* anti-U.S.-war line regarding Iraq and Syria, in the sense of not infringing on the national sovereignty of those countries, such as they are.

But I remain very concerned with the expansionism of ISIS / ISIL, as with its newly founded 'Caliphate', and its religious fundamentalism and social intolerance generally. I don't think it's glib to term it a religious-style *fascism*, which is only going to fester and worsen as the black-hole of international politics in a worldwide worsening economic situation.

For *this* context I am taking a decidedly *neutral* position regarding U.S. / imperialist incursions against ISIS, because I think the Western powers are best-equipped to intervene in that situation, even though the actuality happens to be far less than what the Obama Administration promised, according to news reports -- see post #65.

Yet ISIS has some support among the local population because the Iraqi national government is a kleptocratic sectarian mess.

[Ravn]

I agree with this but even if America still feels the need to be there they should atleast do a good job or try too..


You want the fox to do a better job at pretending to guard the hen house?

[ckaihatsu]

[LaborTech] Turkish Government Allows Fundamentalist Islamic Websites While Cracking Down On Left Websites

Turkish Government Allows Fundamentalist Islamic Websites While Cracking Down On Left
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/14/world/europe/islamist-websites-in-turkey-manage-to-evade-strict-internet-censorship.html?_r=0

Islamist Websites in Turkey Manage to Evade Strict Internet Censorship

By TIM ARANGOMARCH 13, 2015

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/03/14/world/turkey/turkey-articleLarge.jpg
A hallmark of the leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been a crackdown on freedom of expression.CreditBurhan Ozbilici/Associated Press

ISTANBUL — The websites of an atheist association, the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo and a Kurdish separatist organization are blocked to Turkish Internet users. But many sites that promote extreme Islamist messages — even some that are outright sympathetic to the Islamic State, the militant organization that has marauded through Iraq and Syria — escape Turkey’s censors.

A hallmark of the decade-long leadership of Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his Islamist Justice and Development Party, or A.K.P., has been a crackdown on freedom of expression. Yet what Turkey chooses to censor reflects the Islamist values of the government, critics say. With the rise of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, this dynamic has been set in sharp relief, highlighting the deep divide between Turkey and its Western allies in the fight against the militants.


The presidential palace in Ankara. Experts check President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s meals in a lab in the building.In Turkey, Testing the President’s Food Not for Taste, but for PoisonMARCH 4, 2015
The contradictions are often striking, as Turkey largely maintains a hands-off approach to extremist Islamist expression while widely cracking down on other speech. Last year, for instance, Twitter fielded more requests from Turkey to remove material than from any other country. And lately, a beauty queen, a top newspaper editor, an actor, a teenage boy and dozens of others have been targeted by prosecutors for insulting Mr. Erdogan.

At the same time, one prominent site, Takva Haber, a widely used forum for recruiting Turks to the Islamic State, operates freely. It is also a popular news site for jihadists, and it recently offered tips to fighters in Iraq and Syria about how to avoid being spotted by drones from the American-led coalition carrying out an air campaign against the militants.

“It sparked curiosity in me and guided me to the forums where people provide information about the recruitment process and logistics,” said Can, a 27-year-old from Ankara, the capital, who had joined the Islamic State and then defected, speaking on condition that he be identified only by his middle name, out of fear of reprisals.

“The ISIS Internet community in Turkey is big and has a big following,” he said. “That’s how everyone comes together and communicates. If we all met on the street, people would notice.”

American officials have sharply criticized Turkey for doing little to aid the fight against the Islamic State, denying coalition planes an air base for strikes in Syria and Iraq and standing by while the militants attacked the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani. American diplomats say the reluctance is attributable in part to the government’s dependence in this Sunni nation on a deep well of religious conservatism that bridles at assisting in attacks against a Sunni group, even one as brutal as the Islamic State.

But allowing militant websites to flourish is problematic, analysts say, alienating allies and, at worst, opening the government to accusations of tacitly collaborating with the militants.

“Leaving the ISIS propaganda to flourish is equivalent to endorsement,” said David L. Phillips, the director of the Program on Peace-building and Human Rights at Columbia University and a former State Department official who has researched Turkey’s policy on the Islamic State.

Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
Turkey’s reluctance to crack down on militant websites also reflects the government’s view that the primary enemy in Syria is the government of President Bashar al-Assad, not the Islamic State. Turkey has also opposed efforts by Kurds within Syria to secure an autonomous region, fearing it would embolden Turkey’s restive Kurdish minority.

“They continue to be more concerned with Assad and Kurdish separatism than they are about ISIS,” said Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Haass said Turkey’s reluctance to go after Islamic State-related websites is consistent with a “domestic tolerance” within Turkey toward the group.

The government’s priorities in the arena of censorship are protecting “the reputation of political figures” and religious defamation cases, such as the decision to block the Charlie Hebdo website, said Yaman Akdeniz, a cyberlaw expert and professor at Istanbul’s Bilgi University who is advising the legal teams defending the beauty queen and the atheist association.

“The censorship is in line with government sensitivities and matters that make them uncomfortable,” he said.

A senior government official, speaking anonymously as a matter of protocol, refused to address the issue of what is censored and what is not, at least not directly. “The regulation of the Internet is a very technical matter that involves many different factors, from citizen complaints to court orders,” he said. “The government doesn’t sit around a big table and make decisions on what should and shouldn’t be blocked.”

Susan Corke, the director of Eurasia programs at Freedom House, an advocacy group that promotes freedom of expression, said that the government’s censorship priorities were quite evident. “Apparently,” she wrote in an email, “that means blocking sites it deems offensive like those promoting atheism, but being tolerant of radical Islamist sites like Takva Haber.”

In addition to Takva Haber and countless Twitter accounts that promote the Islamic State, there is the work of Ebu Hanzala, a Turkish Salafist cleric who is sometimes called the “spiritual leader” of the militant group within Turkey. He has been arrested several times over the years — once on suspicion of planning attacks on synagogues in Istanbul, other times in raids targeting Al Qaeda — but he is free today, and his online magazine promotes Shariah law. While he does not explicitly promote the Islamic State, his teachings have helped inspire recruits.

Speaking in New York last week at the Council on Foreign Relations, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu was asked by Mr. Haass about what appeared to be the contradiction of his participation in a march in Paris after the attack in January on Charlie Hebdo’s offices and Turkey’s record of censorship.

Mr. Davutoglu said, “Freedom of speech, that does not mean freedom of insult.”

Asked who decides what expression to censor and what to allow, Mr. Davutoglu said, “The social values decides.”

Turkey was no paragon of free speech under its old secular and nationalist system, although, then, the frequent offense was to insult notions of “Turkishness.” Now the government focuses on speech it deems insulting to Islam or the president, or that promotes atheism.

“Social values in Turkey today are Islamist values,” Mr. Phillips said. “The A.K.P. sees itself as the enforcer of Turkey’s values.”

Ceylan Yeginsu contributed reporting.