3 ms·

Michael Flynn, former director of the DIA until 2014 stated in a live interview, that the US government knew about the rise of these extremists in 2012 and that

Michael Flynn, former director of the DIA until 2014 stated in a live interview, that the US government knew about the rise of these extremists in 2012 and that the US government made a "wilful decision" to turn a blind eye on them in the hope that they will get rid of Assad. He also stated that the US government supported Al-Qaeda in Syria. https://www.rt.com/usa/312050-dia-flynn-islamic-state/ https://www.rt.com/usa/312050-dia-flynn-islamic-state/ This link is from RT, but you can watch the video of it. Oh, and then there's general Petraeus who tried to convince the government that there is some part of Al-Nusra that is cool and okay, and we could use them.

tptacek 11y ago
Juan Cole disagrees. http://www.juancole.com/2015/05/strategic-against-assad.html http://www.juancole.com/2015/05/strategic-against-assad.html Short summary: the text of the actual DIA memo is much more complicated than the interview lets on, but the memo itself was uncovered by conservative media sites who then spun it into "Obama sponsored ISIS".
- DominikR 11y ago
  Please explain how it is possible that ISIS expanded their territory during a time when the US-led "anti-ISIS" coalition flew more than 8000 sorties against them and now when Russia starts a war against them with a significantly smaller force they are loosing ground massively. How is that even possible? I cannot believe that the US military is so ineffective. The US military was ordered to be ineffective, they are probably bombing the desert or some infrastructure that isn't used anymore just to make it seem as if they are doing something against ISIS. And to be frank: It would not surprise me if we one day see proof that ISIS was actually trained, supported and equipped by the US. I think that most US citizens wouldn't be surprised by this. There's just no way you can explain away the fact that a smaller Russian force crushes ISIS so quickly while the strongest military power in the world cannot seem to stop them with much more firepower, allies and time at their hand. Edit: Another reason why I am sure that the US government supports Sunni terrorism: All the countries where the US intervened in the last 15 years sank into total chaos and are today ruled by either ISIS or Al-Qaeda affiliates. This is not mere incompetence, the US military has probably some of the most competent personell in the world. Total chaos in these countries was no coincidence, it was their OBJECTIVE.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I am not interested in this political debate at all. You can safely assume any argument I'd come up with would just be sourced from people like Juan Cole anyways, and go read him instead.
    - DominikR 11y ago
      Okay, I'll just quote parts of the declassified the document you linked to: "C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHiA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)." So a Salafist principality is exactly what the supporters (US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia) of the opposition want.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        You picked one of the very few parts of the memo Cole quotes directly, and then applied a meaning to it that was the opposite of the one Cole took. I'm not persuaded.

tptacek 11y ago

Juan Cole disagrees. http://www.juancole.com/2015/05/strategic-against-assad.html http://www.juancole.com/2015/05/strategic-against-assad.html Short summary: the text of the actual DIA memo is much more complicated than the interview lets on, but the memo itself was uncovered by conservative media sites who then spun it into "Obama sponsored ISIS".

DominikR 11y ago
Please explain how it is possible that ISIS expanded their territory during a time when the US-led "anti-ISIS" coalition flew more than 8000 sorties against them and now when Russia starts a war against them with a significantly smaller force they are loosing ground massively. How is that even possible? I cannot believe that the US military is so ineffective. The US military was ordered to be ineffective, they are probably bombing the desert or some infrastructure that isn't used anymore just to make it seem as if they are doing something against ISIS. And to be frank: It would not surprise me if we one day see proof that ISIS was actually trained, supported and equipped by the US. I think that most US citizens wouldn't be surprised by this. There's just no way you can explain away the fact that a smaller Russian force crushes ISIS so quickly while the strongest military power in the world cannot seem to stop them with much more firepower, allies and time at their hand. Edit: Another reason why I am sure that the US government supports Sunni terrorism: All the countries where the US intervened in the last 15 years sank into total chaos and are today ruled by either ISIS or Al-Qaeda affiliates. This is not mere incompetence, the US military has probably some of the most competent personell in the world. Total chaos in these countries was no coincidence, it was their OBJECTIVE.
- tptacek 11y ago
  I am not interested in this political debate at all. You can safely assume any argument I'd come up with would just be sourced from people like Juan Cole anyways, and go read him instead.
  - DominikR 11y ago
    Okay, I'll just quote parts of the declassified the document you linked to: "C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHiA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)." So a Salafist principality is exactly what the supporters (US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia) of the opposition want.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      You picked one of the very few parts of the memo Cole quotes directly, and then applied a meaning to it that was the opposite of the one Cole took. I'm not persuaded.