ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi killed in US raid in Syria near Turkish border - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of the Middle East.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15045820
Tainari88 wrote:Sorry, that era is over with BJ. You got to cope with diversity, and multiculturalism.

I'm not a British subject. It ends with my DNA. It's the British establishment that has to deal with diversity and multiculturalism, and the political establishment they turned on its head by turning the nations demography on its head. Now they don't know how to govern the country anymore, because they no longer understand it. Same problem with the establishment in the US.

Tainari88 wrote:the ones who are not Anglo have taken over London and Leeds....because the British invaded Africa, Asia and so on....

That's not why. It's immigration policy that has led to the multiculturalism, etc.

Atlantis wrote:After the Vietnam war, the allies that had fought the war along the US even took care of the refugees of that war, the Vietnamese boat people.

Europe did not fight in Vietnam alongside the Americans. European troops were next to nil. The biggest help the US got was from South Korea followed by Thailand and Australia. The Philippines and New Zealand also provided nominal support. Even the Korean War had nominal European help. The British contributed 15k troops. Where was France (1100), Belgium (900), Germany, Italy, Spain, etc? All less than 2k troops compared to 326k from the United States. Outside of defending European imperial outposts, European forces have done almost diddly squat compared to America.

Atlantis wrote:Trump believes that the US is so strong that the US doesn't need allies.

Trump is rightly pointing out that the the so-called allies have done next to nothing except for the most part, with exception for the Anglophone countries and South Korea.

Atlantis wrote:Trump also believes that the US has no responsibility for the consequences or the refugees of the wars the US has fought.

The biggest of that would be the Syrian War, and that was Obama/Killary's war.

Atlantis wrote:That is of course absurd, the US never stations even a single soldier abroad if it is not to defend US interests.

Europeans never station a single soldier abroad to defend European interests if they can get the Americans to shoulder the responsibility.

Tainari88 wrote:For me true allies and true friends are about not self interest at all but true spirit of giving and supporting.

You're such a sweetheart, but that is not how the world works and it is never how the world has worked.

Tainari88 wrote:Climate change is going to change it all Atlantis.

:roll:

B0ycey wrote:Having said that what surprises me with Blackjack is not that he agrees that the Kurds are nothing to America, but he doesn't care that they have been used for their illegal war and left to rot as they are killed by the Turks.

For whose illegal war? Obama and Hillary's attempt to overthrow Assad, but trying to make it look like it was a grass-roots internal uprising, when it wasn't? I find the establishment lamenting Trump's lack of support for the Kurds repugnant when they are so pusillanimous that they can't even pass a resolution to use force--either Democrats or Republicans. They're a bunch of gutless punks.

B0ycey wrote:I bet he'd care if they start flying planes into American buildings. Ultimately America is a target for terrorism not because terrorists hate the West. But because the Americans interfere in other peoples lands/politics and then fuck off leaving the mess behind.

Yeah, you really think that 9/11 was that the Mujahideen wanted a US presence in Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out? We abandoned the Mujahideen, and they were so heart sick that they decided to fly airplanes into the WTC? Dude, it's time to grow up and start thinking for yourself. When you do, it's quite likely that you will not agree with me, but you won't be spewing establishment rhetoric like such a dewy-eyed doofus. Do you have any theory on why 9/11 happened followed by the Iraq War? Official narratives are always a lie B0ycey. They are meant to pull the heartstrings of people like @Tainari88.

My theory is thus: Saddam Hussein needed to pay off his war debt, so he invaded Kuwait to seize its oil. There was no immediate military blowback, so they advanced to Khafji, Saudi Arabia. US warhawks shit their pants, and put together the Gulf War coalition and kicked the living shit out of Iraq; however, they left Hussein in charge too keep the Shia down so that Iraq would continue to be a bulwark against Iran. To dissuade Hussein from invading Saudi Arabia, the US left a significant contingent of US military forces in Saudi Arabia, mostly around Dharan and Khobar. Osama bin Laden wanted to lead the fight against Hussein, but was denied both by King Fahd and US Forces, primarily because Iraq had significant tank forces and infantry and bin Laden's ragtag band would have been pointlessly slaughtered while wasting the time of more professional forces. Bin Laden was insulted. Following the war, bin Laden was offended that "infidel" soldiers were in Saudi Arabia, and factions within Saudi Arabia were also averse to the US presence. So they engineered 9/11 to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 we had quite a few comments from high ranking Saudis about US troops in the area. US military thinkers judge enemies like Hussein based on their capabilities and past actions, not on what they say they will do. So the consensus among military thinkers was that if US troops needed to pull out of Saudi Arabia, then Hussein had to go. So that's why the ginned up the Iraq War. They had to sell the WMD scenario, because the legal basis--material breach of the ceasefire agreement (UNSC 687) was an insufficient "moral" basis to tug at the heart strings of people like Tainari88. So they had to use fear to sell the war, and WMDs was their answer. I do think there was a significant faction that also believed terrorists with WMDs was an inevitability. They continued this policy under Obama and Killary, because Libya and Syria also exhibited nuclear ambitions.

Atlantis wrote:To deny the fact of national interest may sound romantic but is, in fact, a dangerous game, as it leads to delusional politics.

It's nice that sometimes you say intelligent things.

Tainari88 wrote:But my personal experience tells me that politics in the USA is tainted with some heavily horrible things. Racism, classism and warmongering and drug addiction and dependence, bad values and wanting to dominate.

The US didn't invade Iraq for its oil, but because Hussein was a threat to Kuwait, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, etc. It wasn't go gain control of Iraqi oil, but to prevent the loss of control of the other states in the region allied with the US and UK.

late wrote:Realpolitik tries to get short term gain, at the cost of a larger, long term loss.

Nobody fights for a long term loss.

Tainari88 wrote:What did they accomplish in Iraq?

The Gulf War was a seminal event. Many still believed that the US and Soviet Union were more or less evenly matched. All the bullshit about the US providing military aid to Hussein aside, the Iraqis had primarily a Soviet-based military footprint, with some added French weapons. US military equipment was negligible. The Gulf War shattered the confidence of the Soviet Union's military thinkers, because it showed that had they attacked the West they would have gotten their asses kicked. While the Warsaw Pact had already fallen by 1989, in the aftermath of the Gulf War, Gorbachev's government collapsed on December 24, 1991--the best Christmas gift ever.

Tainari88 wrote:And I have to see the destruction and then some American fools thinking they are going to move in and set up Crytocurrencies and gated communities and not pay taxes and destroy that society completely

Get ready for multiculturalism Tainari88. Just take a little sip... he he he.

Tainari88 wrote:All the lack of caring and callous disregard for human lives

Yeah, because the Sinaloa cartel are so caring and regarding of human life. :roll:

Tainari88 wrote:Would have gotten way better results by investing in Iraqi infrastructure products and rebuilding and actually being predictable and good stewards of things and being able to hand over power to local people with a lot of dedication to what matters to most human governments.

Which is exactly why Trump is a better option than Clinton was or Biden is.

Tainari88 wrote:Yet they continue with delusions of grandeur.

Except Trump and maybe Tulsi Gabbard...

Tainari88 wrote:Human beings genes have not changed that much.

So what about gene modification?
#15045849
blackjack21 wrote:For whose illegal war? Obama and Hillary's attempt to overthrow Assad, but trying to make it look like it was a grass-roots internal uprising, when it wasn't?


Daesh came from the Iraq war not Syrian. That is the illegal war I meant. And although I agree that at one point the objective was to overthrow Assad, we (the West) have not been at war with Syria to make it illegal. It is a civil war and we have been given support for the uprising (which exists). But of course doing that was an illegal act.

Having said that we should be grateful that the UK MPs refused to enter the Tory governments plans to attack Assad directly which may have caused conflict with Russia and most definitely have turned the whole of Syria into Daesh territory.

Yeah, you really think that 9/11 was that the Mujahideen wanted a US presence in Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out? We abandoned the Mujahideen, and they were so heart sick that they decided to fly airplanes into the WTC? Dude, it's time to grow up and start thinking for yourself. When you do, it's quite likely that you will not agree with me, but you won't be spewing establishment rhetoric like such a dewy-eyed doofus. Do you have any theory on why 9/11 happened followed by the Iraq War? Official narratives are always a lie B0ycey. They are meant to pull the heartstrings of people like @Tainari88.


I believe the official narrative for 9/11 was interference in two holy lands. But if you look at who was involved in the 1993 Trade Centre bombings you can make a theory and conclusion that it was due to US abandonment in Afghanistan and the pulling of funds to the Muhajideen once the SU pulled out. And as the target was financial not political that would suggest a link to this idea also. 9/11 was just part of that attack along with the bombing of embassies in Africa (I believe) where the Taliban declared war on America which began around the time of the SU pulling out from Afghanistan.

I could write a long story and theory how the timeline plays out like you, but ultimately the similarities of the Taliban with the Kurds today and the US response to both once the object have been reached is identical. So should the blowback be identical - especially considering your response on the Kurds, then please don't cry freedom tears when you openly have admitted they mean nothing to you today.
#15045854
B0ycey wrote:Daesh came from the Iraq war not Syrian. That is the illegal war I meant. And although I agree that at one point the objective was to overthrow Assad, we (the West) have not been at war with Syria to make it illegal. It is a civil war and we have been given support for the uprising (which exists). But of course doing that was an illegal act.


The "illegal war" was started by the Republican administration of G. W. Bush. In 2008, Bush also started to undermine Syria (in addition to Ukraine) along the lines of neocon policy of "taking 7 countries in 5 years." That is what Obama inherited. Obama was not able to undo that policy, but he tried to get out off it by not bombarding Syria and by not actively participating in the bombing of Libya.

Having said that we should be grateful that the UK MPs refused to enter the Tory governments plans to attack Assad directly which may have caused conflict with Russia and most definitely have turned the whole of Syria into Daesh territory.


Cameron wanted to bombard Syria before Russia got involved. When Cameron failed to get the House of Commons to approve his war plans for Syria, he decided to wage an information war instead to prepare the groundwork for a shooting war. He set up a number of organisation like the While Helmets with the help of former British intelligence officers to support the terrorists in Syria and to generate PR for preparing the home audience for war by using false flag operations about chemical weapons, etc.
#15045879
blackjack21 wrote:
My theory is thus: Saddam Hussein needed to pay off his war debt, so he invaded Kuwait to seize its oil. There was no immediate military blowback, so they advanced to Khafji, Saudi Arabia. US warhawks shit their pants, and put together the Gulf War coalition and kicked the living shit out of Iraq; however, they left Hussein in charge too keep the Shia down so that Iraq would continue to be a bulwark against Iran.



Nobody fights for a long term loss.





A war in Saudi Arabia would kick off a global recession. You would be hard pressed to find a country that liked it. Even Iran wouldn't want to see Iraq raking in Saudi oil money. Isreal was quaking in it's boots so hard they were doing secret talks with SA to help them if it came to that.

I offer this without intent or comment: April Glaspie was a horrid choice to be ambassador to Iraq. The things she said almost encouraged an invasion of Kuwait, from Saddam's perspective. That situation was bizarre beyond words. I don't think we intended for Saddam to go to war, that's a kinky conspiracy theory. But the level of incompetence is just staggering.

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence"
Hanlons Razor

Nobody wants to fight for a long term loss. But look at the Vietnam conflict, Iraq or Afghanistan. We were, or are, fighting. And things are worse than when we started...
#15045884
@blackjack21 come on Senor...who do you think implements these policies and for what purposes?

That's not why. It's immigration policy that has led to the multiculturalism, etc.


Do you think that neoliberal and liberal globalist capitalism machine doesn't have a plan? They have to allow these folks in because they put tremendous pressure on the societies they come from....Pakistan is in a heavy duty mess economically, politically, etc. India always has had poverty and also just problems and they sucked out resources for years from these places. They got to come up with shit to cover their interferences and snow the public of how they are there for altruistic purposes. So they come up with policies to smooth over that problem. They truly don't care about racial purity, nationalism, being patriotic or thinking nationalistically about what will the culture shift do to the lower classes who compete for jobs with immigrants desperate for a way to pay the bills. If they thought about the lower classes they would have a different set of policies. They don't. I thought you knew this.....The reason why these nations have wealth in few liberal hands is because they have been implementing negotiations with many nations resources and gov'ts for years...they have to compromise with the multiculturalism idea so that people in UK or wherever....follow what needs to happen for the soft power plays for the liberal elites to work. You know this Blackjack....lol.
#15045890
@blackjack21

So what about gene modification?


You know you need to start realizing the real limits of technology and get out more. Most of the nations of the world are not wealthy nations Blackjack. Then you have religious people who don't trust science and gene modification. Then you got to see if these pharma or bio tech companies are not out to fleece the public or the government with claims that are not verifiable about what the splice will do for people. Then the ethics involved. Who gets to be the guinea pigs.

Some of these bad genes supposed theories could be solved with better diets by master nutritionists or by some kind of discipline and or behavior theories. Who knows?

Most of the world has problems finding and using clean water that is drinkable. How are you going to get a mass gene modification plan for the world's poorest people who don't even have clean water, basic educations, vaccinations for common disease prevention, and nutritionally rich foods for all? If the world can't accomplish those basic things in the vast majority of countries like Malawi or Congo or Bolivia or Bangladesh? How is the super genes who will produce the super humans going to happen at all on a mass scale? Answer me that one.....smarty pants. 8)
#15046164


blackjack21 wrote:The US military held him in detention in Iraq, so they had his DNA and it matched.




If they killed him, we'd see evidence. They didn't. But they had claimed they killed him a bunch of times before too. This is a bullshit story.

It's about keeping that oil out of al Qaeda/ISIS hands. Syria isn't exactly an oil prize for the US.




We know our politicians don't love us. We just want to make sure they are afraid of us.


I'm amused you think U.S. presidents are afraid of you.
#15046176
Zionist Nationalist wrote:US doesn't need Syrian oil

US stays there because their allies in the region asked them to stay.
Yeah I know those damn Jews are at it again :lol:


Tell me ZN, are Zionists antisemits at heart?

Trump wanted out of Syria because the neocon project didn't turn out so well, but he has always been of the opinion that the US should have taken Iraqi oil to compensate for the cost of the invasion. That's why the US defense establishment was able to convinced him to stay in Syria so as to take Syrian oil.
#15046205
anasawad wrote:@Atlantis
Disagree. It's more like there is an idiot in charge who doesn't know how to do strategy.

All the reports show that his rash, unthought through decisions caused this.


No argument about that. The idiot in chief almost messed up the killing of Bagdhadi too.

That doesn't change the fact that the US doesn't have the means to kill ISIS leaders at will. If they had, they would have killed the whole bunch long time ago.

Anyways, with the loss of its territory in Syria and Iraq, the killing of the operational leaders isn't all that important because they are not necessarily valuable for continuing ISIS in Mali, Libya or wherever.

Killing the "spiritual" leader may reduced ISIS's ability to recruit. After all, all who joined ISIS swore allegiance to Bagdhadi. A new leader will first have to build his reputation.
#15046340
@Atlantis
That doesn't change the fact that the US doesn't have the means to kill ISIS leaders at will. If they had, they would have killed the whole bunch a long time ago.

Though I'm not currently informed on the full situation, I doubt this is true based on my experience in the region.

In the middle east, there are eyes and ears everywhere.
If an intelligence agency wants to find someone, it can easily do so. Rather, many, if not most, terrorist leaders are only alive because someone wants them to stay alive, or simply because their time hasn't came yet.

Anyways, with the loss of its territory in Syria and Iraq, the killing of the operational leaders isn't all that important because they are not necessarily valuable for continuing ISIS in Mali, Libya or wherever.

The military command in any such group is, often, the most fanatic and zealous; Killing the political leadership only unleashes them.

Killing the "spiritual" leader may reduced ISIS's ability to recruit. After all, all who joined ISIS swore allegiance to Bagdhadi. A new leader will first have to build his reputation.

ISIS is a Wahabi group; Wahabism and Salafism is still alive and well in the region.

Even the "moderate" Islamists in the region like Al-Azhar clerics preach the same actions and ideology that ISIS applied, so the ideology is still alive and well.



Regarding the overall situation, my biggest concern right now is in Lebanon, we came back to Lebanon for the protests and considering the ISIS's military is now loose, there is a high probability they'll try to attack here which will cause everyone to go up in arms and potentially spark a civil war with Hezbollah (Everyone Vs Hezbollah).
#15046348
anasawad wrote:In the middle east, there are eyes and ears everywhere.
If an intelligence agency wants to find someone, it can easily do so. Rather, many, if not most, terrorist leaders are only alive because someone wants them to stay alive, or simply because their time hasn't came yet.


I guess this is true of most places. The problem is that, due to the erratic foreign policy of the US administration, the US doesn't have much of a presence on the ground. There are things you can't do with satellites.

The US now doesn't have much intelligence on the ground because:

- the US is cut off from the regime
- the US has cut loose the various militias it has trained
- the US can't rely on Turkey as a reliable partner
- the US can't rely on Russian sources
- the US has now betrayed the Kurds who are less likely to help (which almost compromised the killing of Bagdhadi)

And since ISIS still has support among Sunnis in the region, tracking down and killing ISIS leaders isn't such an easy thing for the US.

Regarding the overall situation, my biggest concern right now is in Lebanon, we came back to Lebanon for the protests and considering the ISIS's military is now loose, there is a high probability they'll try to attack here which will cause everyone to go up in arms and potentially spark a civil war with Hezbollah (Everyone Vs Hezbollah).


ISIS thrives on chaos. As long as there is chaos in the region, ISIS will do fine no matter how many of its leaders get killed. They claimed responsibility for the killing of 53 soldiers in Mali.

Looks like terror will be a growth business for some time to come.
#15046357
@Atlantis
I guess this is true of most places. The problem is that, due to the erratic foreign policy of the US administration, the US doesn't have much of a presence on the ground. There are things you can't do with satellites.

True, but it doesn't need to.
It's not the only one in the region.

The US now doesn't have much intelligence on the ground because:

- the US is cut off from the regime
- the US has cut loose the various militias it has trained
- the US can't rely on Turkey as a reliable partner
- the US can't rely on Russian sources
- the US has now betrayed the Kurds who are less likely to help (which almost compromised the killing of Bagdhadi)

And since ISIS still has support among Sunnis in the region, tracking down and killing ISIS leaders isn't such an easy thing for the US.

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.
All have eyes on the ground, and all can easily organize an assassination, as seen many times before.

Not to mention Iran, Syria, and Russia.

Al-Baghdadi stayed alive because his time wasn't up yet; The US's administration decision to kill him was rash even by its own intelligence agencies since although the US army is off the ground, the CIA is still very much everywhere in the region.



Now, there is one possible rational argument to support this decision which is to cut down Iran's interests in the region (Iran has a huge interest in keeping ISIS alive and well at the moment, and I wont be surprised if it intentionally let arms pass to them); However, I doubt the Trump's administration is smart enough to consider such move.
#15046384
anasawad wrote:Now, there is one possible rational argument to support this decision which is to cut down Iran's interests in the region (Iran has a huge interest in keeping ISIS alive and well at the moment, and I wont be surprised if it intentionally let arms pass to them); However, I doubt the Trump's administration is smart enough to consider such move.


Now you lost me. Why on Earth should Iran support Sunni terror? Aren't you descending into the realm of conspiracy here?

Iran has a lot of other problems right now - with the protests in Iraq and Lebanon spiraling out of control. Why should they support ISIS? Turkey yes, Turkey always supported ISIS, but Iran?
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Every accusation is a confession Why sexual v[…]

Deliberately ignoring evidence showing IDF air str[…]

Indeed. It is strange, but they're all over the in[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ay43E94W58 :D […]