From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>


[edit] Hillary's leaked e-mails and ISIS connection (Wikileaks)

Why isn't the article updated with recent Wikileaks information about Hillary's connection to ISIS? When I have time I will try to do some research on those e-mails and provide links.

Quote from article: Republican presidential nominee and professional dickhead Donald Trump has even gone so far as to suggest that he [Obama] is the literal founder of DAESH, with "Crooked Hillary" being the co-founder. To which a Clinton surrogate issued a tu quoque statement that "Trump and his friend Putin" were the real founders of DAESH. Neither of which, incidentally, is true. End of quote.

Well, now it seems to be proven that although Washington might have not participated directly in its founding (although either way they are responsible for its creation, which is mentioned in this article), it doesn't mean they haven't been funding them. On the contrary... Theinsider (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a thought — given the documented history of Soviet forgeries, and the documented connections between Trump & Putin and Assange & Russia, how does one know that the ever-so-conveniently leaked documents are not a Russian forgery? Bongolian (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The Russians wouldn't do that! They're on our side; they even like Trump! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
This is an old game. We saw it in the 80s Iran-Iraq war. Saddam was provided assistance. When Saddam starting gaining the upper hand, Saddam was dropped and Iran recieved the assistance. The same thing is happening in Afghanistan, the Taliban is fighting forces which have sworn alligience to ISIS, so as long as the don't threaten Kabul, they are doing the governments dirty work.
Bongolian "Ever-so-conveniently"? Please explain that. As for Putin & Assange, can you provide some of those documented connections? Because all the "sources" I have seen so far about it are laughable and idiotic, to say the least (not surprisingly, most of them are featured on the very RationalWiki's article on Wikileaks. "The biggest boogie-man monster-demon Russia" fable from the Cold War era doesn't interest me either. I thought that those times when truth was labelled as "commie forgery" and "KGB conspiracy" threatening to destroy our liberty are over, but I guess they are revived, stronger than ever. So are you implying it's not a coincidence that all this is emerging right now, during the US elections, and that it's a Putin-Assange plot to smear Hillary's image, in order for Trump to win the elections?
It's been fairly obvious Daesh and the forces its fighting, Assad, al Nusra, some Kurdish forces, have all recieved assistance at various times when it appeared thier enemies were gaining the upper hand. So please, don't go off half-cocked with partial information like you're onto a big story or scandal or something. It'll make this article sound like Donald Trump (or worse yet, Michael Moore).nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 19:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
nobs, why are you being an asshole? You probably missed the "when I have more information" part. WHEN the e-mails do get released (announced this September) we will know for sure. I was merely calling out to anyone who has more information. You're implying that it doesn't matter who is or was secretly supporting them, because "everyone does it". Is it a reason not to include it in the article? Personally, it seems more logical to see those yet unconfirmed allegations about a woman with a dark past and such a large body count behind her, than their stupid pre-election hypocritical childish games featured as nothing more than a footnote in the article. Theinsider (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Look at "the big picture", as they say. The overriding concern is Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea's attempt to weaken NATO. But the global jihad provides an opportunity for a limited alliance and cooperation. Iran wants a place at the table as an equal partner among Superpowers. Iran however remains hostile to key US allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Daesh is doing the US and its allies dirty work right now, as its primary focus is keeping Iranian influence (among Hezbollah, the Alawites and the Shia outside Iran) in check. So, until NATO and its allies become convinced Iranian bluster toward Israel and Saudi Arabia is just that, bluster, intended to unite Sunni and Shi'a under Iranian representation on the UN Security Council with a willingness to negotiate rather than use force, the Daesh dogs of war unleashed by Saudi Arabia and the US will continue being costly to Iranian military strength.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 20:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
This post is vague as fuck. What exactly was so telling in the emails. Cursory internet searching seems to suggest crazy people saying crazy things with some vague reference to wikileaks, but what you've given me here as a pull quote is meaningless. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
ikanreed, and you were expecting what? It can't be less vague than it is because the e-mails aren't released yet. They are announced for this October and the purpose of the post was to encourage those who maybe have more insight into the issue and know better than "cursory internet searching", to say something. Theinsider (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Why does anybody still do this? Funding and arming people we know are terrible? What about a "radio free Arabia" funded by US and EU Dollars and staffed by Arab dissidents, feminists and secularists? And cutting all funding to idiots, warlords, clerics and dictators. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
It's called real politique; you can thank Henry Kissinger for that. You'll be searching an awful long time before you find the Democratic Secularist Army of Free Syria. By the way, do not search Wikileaks: it's been infested by malware due to the policy of non-editing/non-censorship.[1] Bongolian (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
As they say of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the only thing that held dozens of ethnic groups together for more than a century was their mutual hatred of each other.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 19:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit] An historical parallel

To understand US policy and how this may play out, let's look at an historical parallel. In 1979 after the US withdrew (when the Shah fell), a power vacuum ensued and a cross-border war erupted between Iran and Iraq. First everybody wanted both sides to lose. When Iran gained the upper hand because of numerical superiority, the US backed Saddam Hussein, partly as an emotional response because most people were still pissed off at the Ayatollah over the hostage crisis. When Saddam evened the score and began gaining an upper hand, suddenly everybody got nervous Saddam might be strong enough to invade Kuwait. Then it became time to take Saddam down a notch by selling TOW missiles to Iran. It was only natural to try to re-establish relations with an ally who had been loyal going back to the war against Hitler. But domestically, some wanted to make a political scandal out of it.

Ultimately, the overture to Iran was quashed, Saddam did invade Kuwait, the US sent 700,000 troops to oust him, Iraq was under sanctions for 10 years. 500,000 children allegedly died under the sanctions. Al Qaeda attacked America in reprisal. The war on terror was a failure. And another power vacuum ensued after the US left a second time, leading to cross-boarder fighting that the US wanted to see both loose, in this case Daesh & Assad.

But Daesh and Assad really have avoided fighting each other; they've focused on fighting smaller groups in an effort to consolidate their position. When the lines are drawn, it is Assad/Iran vs Daesh/Saudi Arabia. And when the lines are drawn back farther it is Assad/Iran/Putin vs Daesh/Saudi Arabia/US. And in a total conflagration it's Assad/Iran-Russia/China vs Daesh/Saudia Arabia/US-Nato.

So, looking at the historical experience from a US perspective there are one of two likely scenarios: (1) a domestic scandal enflamed by partisanship to fuck up US foreign policy the next 20 or 30 years; or (2) the likelihood of a second Cold War (a cold war differs from a hot shooting war; in a cold war the antagonists avoid a hot shooting war with each other, bang heads together of minor allies, and encourage hot shooting wars between their minor allies and their chief antagonists minor allies, so long as they don't get dragged into a face to face confrontation with their own chief antagonists).

This second scenario is a distinct possibility. The major antagonists have territorial ambitions (Russia in the Ukraine and elsewhere; China in Taiwan, the Spratlys and elsewhere; Assad to hold on to what he's got and regain some of what he's lost; Iran has teroritorial ambitions, not necessarily to annex neighboring territories, but definitely to assert hegemony and control throughout the region and the planet.

What makes Cold War II a distinct possibility and (and maybe even a preferred outcome) is that Nato does not have the power to dictate and enforce borders it once had, the chief antagonists (Russia/China/Iran) are allied in challenging this power.

Next up: a discussion where India fits into the new Asian strategic military alliance of Russia/China/Iran which doesn't give a shit what the Anglo-American alliance (more commonly known as Nato) thinks about redrawing borders, and its impact on US-Pakistani relations.nobs 04:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Mosul

Yesterday, for the first time, we heard references to "Iraqi Special Forces" in reference to efforts to retake Mosul. Translated, if the Baghdad regime has "Special Forces", that means they have access to American training, equipment, and tactics. And if the Baghdad regime has access to American Special Forces training, equipment, and tactics, then the Iranian regime has access to American Special Forces training, equipment, and tactics. Something tells me this is not such a good idea in the long run. nobs 14:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Yet More Alternate Names?

Face it people. Currently DAESH is still not adequate enough to either best describe these guys nor put the wind up them. How about some alternatives? First, "The Nation of Terroristan". A nation devoted to and based upon the precepts of terror. Their mission statement at it's purest, I believe. If not, then maybe co-opting this? Just shorten it to Carbombya/Carbombyans for ease of purpose if you wish. (Whether or not these guys still use car bombs is irrelevant. The term's still apt!) Chair tater (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting "nutshell"-type videos on DAESH

Consider the dates the videos are from — meaning, in every video the information up 'til then is accurate — but obviously, you have to do the work yourself of integrating the various then-future developments which have led up to the present day into the narrative given by the videos. Enjoy! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Mosul

It's unfortunate, but it's happening again. Massive car bombs explode killing civilians in Mosul, and the local Imam or whoever spreads their fake news, is right there on the spot in the immediate avtermath saying it was a US missile strike. Who's behind it (Iran? locals?) we don't know. But at the moment of victory when ISIS is declared dead, don't expect the population to be grateful. This can may already be the beginning of another insurgency which will become strong once ISIS is gone. The region will remain unpacified. nobs 05:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Personal tools