3 ms·

"All the machinery of oppression, and the silly exporting of de-stability (the arms to ISIS)" Ah. People (particularly NY Times readers) see the words "muslim"

by _nedR 11y ago

"All the machinery of oppression, and the silly exporting of de-stability (the arms to ISIS)" Ah. People (particularly NY Times readers) see the words "muslim" and "extermist" and they automatically assume it must be Saudi funded, even if the conclusion makes no sense in the given context. ISIS is the biggest challenge to the Saudi's rule of the peninsula in years. If anyone is going to support them it would be anti-saudi religious extremists looking to overthrow them. There are many groups operating in Syria which could be clients of the Saudis. ISIS is not one of them. It makes no sense for them to do so. edit: rephrasing

KaiserPro 11y ago
Its not actually just Saudis, its Qatar, UK, France, and the US. Saudi Arabia spent a long time getting the US to attack syria. Also Al-quaeda is/was a bigger threat, because it came from within, it started out as a jolly adventure for a low ranking Saudi Noble. ISIS only works in a vacuum, Plus if we are going to be brutally honest, on the scale of 0 - 10 (full ISIS) Suadi Arabia is about a 6-6.9 The main difference is that ISIS show a flair for video editing of their medieval punishments. Something the Saudi state does behind closed doors. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/cia-overseeing-supply-of-weapons-to-syria-rebels/story-fnb64oi6-1226713580332?nk=cf8b4c62d627b4f81a6143cd41544812-1443341961 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/cia-overseeing-su... They, like us were arming the rebels. ISIS "formally" split from the Free Syrian Army in late 2013: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/powerful-rebel-groups-with-ties-to-al-qaeda-calling-for-islamic-law-in-syria-after-breaking-with-exiled-opposition http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/p... When they gave up on getting us to attack them they tried a different tact: http://www.globalresearch.ca/saudi-regime-working-to-lure-the-arab-league-into-attacking-syria/5369258 http://www.globalresearch.ca/saudi-regime-working-to-lure-th... In the same way that Bin Laden is a direct consequence of our actions in 80s Afghanistan. ISIS is a direct consequence of our half-arsed dicking about in Syria.
- _nedR 11y ago
  >>They, like us were arming the rebels. ISIS "formally" split from the Free Syrian Army in late 2013: That is not ISIS but Al Nusra - ISIS was not in Syria at the time (at least not openly in such large numbers). Both organisations are quite different in composition, tactics and ambition (ISIS in Syria depends a lot on foreign fighters whereas Al Nusra is more grassroots) >>In the same way that Bin Laden is a direct consequence of our actions in 80s Afghanistan. ISIS is a direct consequence of our half-arsed dicking about in Syria. Basically my original point. ISIS is an UNINTENDED consequence of western dicking in Iraq and mostly middle-eastern (with strong western support) dicking in Syria. (When will they learn?) I don't think any country actually intentionally supported them. >ISIS only works in a vacuum, Plus if we are going to be brutally honest, on the scale of 0 - 10 (full ISIS) Suadi Arabia is about a 6-6.9 For the longest time i thought they were a bunch of religious nutjobs too. But lot of their actions didn't make much sense from that perspective (For example from 2013 -2015 why were they more focussed on attacking other anti-assad rebels than assad himself?). After reading this, it started making more sense:- http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-file... The above article has some holes as well, but it still seems to be the theory that makes the most sense. The whole religious nutjob thing was largely a show put on for the benefit of their followers and enemies. The core of the organisation seems to be made up of Baathists, and their tactics and modus operandi reflect that background. Of course noone would actually support a Baathist resurgence so they adopted a religious cloak to hide their true nature.

by _nedR 11y ago

KaiserPro 11y ago

Its not actually just Saudis, its Qatar, UK, France, and the US. Saudi Arabia spent a long time getting the US to attack syria. Also Al-quaeda is/was a bigger threat, because it came from within, it started out as a jolly adventure for a low ranking Saudi Noble. ISIS only works in a vacuum, Plus if we are going to be brutally honest, on the scale of 0 - 10 (full ISIS) Suadi Arabia is about a 6-6.9 The main difference is that ISIS show a flair for video editing of their medieval punishments. Something the Saudi state does behind closed doors. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/cia-overseeing-supply-of-weapons-to-syria-rebels/story-fnb64oi6-1226713580332?nk=cf8b4c62d627b4f81a6143cd41544812-1443341961 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/cia-overseeing-su... They, like us were arming the rebels. ISIS "formally" split from the Free Syrian Army in late 2013: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/powerful-rebel-groups-with-ties-to-al-qaeda-calling-for-islamic-law-in-syria-after-breaking-with-exiled-opposition http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/p... When they gave up on getting us to attack them they tried a different tact: http://www.globalresearch.ca/saudi-regime-working-to-lure-the-arab-league-into-attacking-syria/5369258 http://www.globalresearch.ca/saudi-regime-working-to-lure-th... In the same way that Bin Laden is a direct consequence of our actions in 80s Afghanistan. ISIS is a direct consequence of our half-arsed dicking about in Syria.

_nedR 11y ago
>>They, like us were arming the rebels. ISIS "formally" split from the Free Syrian Army in late 2013: That is not ISIS but Al Nusra - ISIS was not in Syria at the time (at least not openly in such large numbers). Both organisations are quite different in composition, tactics and ambition (ISIS in Syria depends a lot on foreign fighters whereas Al Nusra is more grassroots) >>In the same way that Bin Laden is a direct consequence of our actions in 80s Afghanistan. ISIS is a direct consequence of our half-arsed dicking about in Syria. Basically my original point. ISIS is an UNINTENDED consequence of western dicking in Iraq and mostly middle-eastern (with strong western support) dicking in Syria. (When will they learn?) I don't think any country actually intentionally supported them. >ISIS only works in a vacuum, Plus if we are going to be brutally honest, on the scale of 0 - 10 (full ISIS) Suadi Arabia is about a 6-6.9 For the longest time i thought they were a bunch of religious nutjobs too. But lot of their actions didn't make much sense from that perspective (For example from 2013 -2015 why were they more focussed on attacking other anti-assad rebels than assad himself?). After reading this, it started making more sense:- http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-file... The above article has some holes as well, but it still seems to be the theory that makes the most sense. The whole religious nutjob thing was largely a show put on for the benefit of their followers and enemies. The core of the organisation seems to be made up of Baathists, and their tactics and modus operandi reflect that background. Of course noone would actually support a Baathist resurgence so they adopted a religious cloak to hide their true nature.