5 ms·

This sounds like a 'dog ate my homework' level of logic explanation.

acqq 11y ago
There are some direct proofs (cables from the US ambassador) for the long-term intentions: http://www.mintpressnews.com/julian-assange-us-israel-planned-to-overthrow-assad-in-2006/209493/ http://www.mintpressnews.com/julian-assange-us-israel-planne...
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
  Can you connect the dots form these cables in 2006 to present-day Syria? I can see a connection between them and supporting the Arab Spring in Syria, but I'm drawing a blank on how this translates into actively supporting ISIS.
  - acqq 11y ago
    The arguments here were not the "active support" of ISIS but "that the West has never been serious about hurting IS." The US ambassador cable is the reflection of the long term interests which actually like the instabilities more (including the conflicts between Sunni and Shia) than the presence of Assad. BTW Assad is kind-of-Shia, and Iran full-Shia. The "rebels," Turkey, ISIS and Saudis are Sunni. The "indirect support" is the fact that the weapons procured by the West (over Turkey) ended up by ISIS. Not to mention effectively allowing different kinds of financing ISIS. I agree with all the estimates presented here that now with the events in Europe not everything will continue exactly as it was up to that point.
    - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
      I don't things are quite so clear cut. Along with the things you mentioned, ISIS gathered much of their materiel from the Iraqi military in its retreat. Whether they are "serious about hurting IS" seems arbitrarily defined by whoever is posing the question. What we do know is that the coalition has conducted ~40,000 sorties over the past year. That seems pretty "serious" to me, but some people might consider "serious" to only mean ground forces.
      - acqq 11y ago
        I fully agree with the "during the Iraqi forces retreat" part. Who fired Saddam's soldiers and built these new Iraqi forces? Do you know when the economic sanctions against ISIS where introduced, and when against Assad? Against ISIS, I can find the "Sept. 29, 2015." Isn't it strangely recent? The bomb strikes are also a good way to show that "something" is done ("we must do something, this is something.") All politicians ordering them like them.
        knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        I guess we need to define what "economic sanctions" are against a group like ISIS, which has no formal economic activity with the outside world that we can "sanction" in the traditional sense. I can find in Dec of 2014 the coalition forming and among its stated goals being to disrupt the flow of financing to ISIS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intervention_against_ISIL#3_December_2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intervention_against_... Aside from that, you could consider the coalitions that have formed against ISIS as the "true" sanctions, in a way.
        acqq 11y ago
        Precisely, end of 2014 "forming with the goal to disrupt," ISIS, that were the "rebels" against "bad Assad" for years before (and vs. the leaked US cable from 2006 planing using Sunni-Shia conflicts against kind-of-Shia Assad).
        knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        FWIW, the US was fighting against ISIL in Iraq long before the Syrian conflict. There are also still are rebels fighting against Assad. "Bad" isnt' some slander from the West against Assad, it's objectively true. It's part of what makes the conflict so complicated, neither outcome is good, thought Assad is probably the lesser of two evils in the shorter term.
        11y ago

acqq 11y ago

There are some direct proofs (cables from the US ambassador) for the long-term intentions: http://www.mintpressnews.com/julian-assange-us-israel-planned-to-overthrow-assad-in-2006/209493/ http://www.mintpressnews.com/julian-assange-us-israel-planne...

knowaveragejoe 11y ago
Can you connect the dots form these cables in 2006 to present-day Syria? I can see a connection between them and supporting the Arab Spring in Syria, but I'm drawing a blank on how this translates into actively supporting ISIS.
- acqq 11y ago
  The arguments here were not the "active support" of ISIS but "that the West has never been serious about hurting IS." The US ambassador cable is the reflection of the long term interests which actually like the instabilities more (including the conflicts between Sunni and Shia) than the presence of Assad. BTW Assad is kind-of-Shia, and Iran full-Shia. The "rebels," Turkey, ISIS and Saudis are Sunni. The "indirect support" is the fact that the weapons procured by the West (over Turkey) ended up by ISIS. Not to mention effectively allowing different kinds of financing ISIS. I agree with all the estimates presented here that now with the events in Europe not everything will continue exactly as it was up to that point.
  - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
    I don't things are quite so clear cut. Along with the things you mentioned, ISIS gathered much of their materiel from the Iraqi military in its retreat. Whether they are "serious about hurting IS" seems arbitrarily defined by whoever is posing the question. What we do know is that the coalition has conducted ~40,000 sorties over the past year. That seems pretty "serious" to me, but some people might consider "serious" to only mean ground forces.
    - acqq 11y ago
      I fully agree with the "during the Iraqi forces retreat" part. Who fired Saddam's soldiers and built these new Iraqi forces? Do you know when the economic sanctions against ISIS where introduced, and when against Assad? Against ISIS, I can find the "Sept. 29, 2015." Isn't it strangely recent? The bomb strikes are also a good way to show that "something" is done ("we must do something, this is something.") All politicians ordering them like them.
      - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        I guess we need to define what "economic sanctions" are against a group like ISIS, which has no formal economic activity with the outside world that we can "sanction" in the traditional sense. I can find in Dec of 2014 the coalition forming and among its stated goals being to disrupt the flow of financing to ISIS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intervention_against_ISIL#3_December_2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intervention_against_... Aside from that, you could consider the coalitions that have formed against ISIS as the "true" sanctions, in a way.
        acqq 11y ago
        Precisely, end of 2014 "forming with the goal to disrupt," ISIS, that were the "rebels" against "bad Assad" for years before (and vs. the leaked US cable from 2006 planing using Sunni-Shia conflicts against kind-of-Shia Assad).
        knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        FWIW, the US was fighting against ISIL in Iraq long before the Syrian conflict. There are also still are rebels fighting against Assad. "Bad" isnt' some slander from the West against Assad, it's objectively true. It's part of what makes the conflict so complicated, neither outcome is good, thought Assad is probably the lesser of two evils in the shorter term.
        11y ago