Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16
th, 2016 at 1:15pm:
Karnal wrote on Mar 16
th, 2016 at 1:09pm:
Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16
th, 2016 at 10:00am:
polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16
th, 2016 at 9:54am:
Actually Mr Hammer, ISIS was created by ex-Saddam loyalists - in particular a Baathist intelligence officer who lost his job after the US invasion. He then became active in the resistance, using his very sophisticated network of informers that he had meticulously developed over the years to create the sunni resistance group then known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. ISIS is just the same group re-branded after AQII was forced underground after the surge. Its a very interesting story about this fellow - Der Spiegel had an expose' on him soon after he was killed in a firefight in early 2014.
Point is, without the US invasion, ex-Baathist officers wouldn't have gone about setting up a sunni resistance movements; and without the invasion their wouldn't be a large pool of disaffected, unemployed sunni males who sign up to such resistance movements - that eventually morphed into what we know as IS.
So the question is, given all that happened as a direct result of the US invasion, is there any point at all at which we can say the US, if not created, was responsible for the creation of IS?
If you don't have the belief system you don't have the organisation. This belief system is a branch of Islam. The organisation developed around these beliefs. It's just a fact. Sorry.
No, Amerika has "made" all sorts of genocidal resistance movements over the years. The Khmer Rouge is one - the result of US attacks on Cambodia. The support of multiple military coups are another - the Shah of Iran, Suharto, Pinochet - these regimes tortured and killed
millions. They were backed, funded and armed by Uncle. Kissenger formally recognized the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia. It took the newly liberated nation of Vietnam to depose Pol Pot. Uncle looked the other way.
The Muselman does not have a monopoly on killing. The belief system that justifies these sorts of atrocities is nothing more than the defence of power. In WWII, the Soviet Army set up machine guns behind the front lines to kill its own soldiers who retreated. The message was clear: fight or die. Countless regimes in the last century alone have had similar policies, and many have been sponsored by Amerika. Today, Uncle supports the most barbaric regime of all: the Saudis. The reason Islamic fundamentalist extremism has spread is Saudi funding. By backing the House of Saud, the US has inadvertently enabled Wahabist propaganda to flow out of the Saudi desert and into places as far afield as Pakistan and Indonesia.
Who's fault is this? As Obama says, it's complicated.
Not this again. the Khmer Rouge was a result of the power vacuum caused by the fall of western imperialism after ww2. When the French left Cambodia it became unstable. America didn't invent the Khmer Rouge. Same thing with Vietnam. The Khmer Rouge invented The Khmer Rouge like how ISIS invented ISIS . I know history isn't one of you stronger subjects but p[lease get your facts right sugar muffin.
The Khmer Rouge is the result of the vacuum that occurred when the US bombed Cambodia. Of course the US didn't "create" the Khmer Rouge, their actions precipitated it. Whenever a country or a people are under attack, armed movements form to defend them.
This is precisely how ISIS came about in Syria and Iraq - they gained support by defending Sunni Muslims. The "belief systems" of such resistance movements depend on their leaders' ambitions. ISIS use the millennial idea of the caliphate. The Khmer Rouge decided to reset time: Year Zero. Sure, such belief systems define how we view them, but they are not the cause. Such ideas emerge along the way, victory by victory.
Sure, ISIS is a Muslim problem. I would not say the Khmer Rouge was a communist problem - no reading of Marx could support this. I'd say Fascism is a nationalist problem: an excess of nationalism will inevitably lead to such views.
I don't think the same can be said of ISIS and Islam. The views of ISIS are a contorted form of fundamentalist dogma. They are what you get, I think, when you descend into warring tribalism. They are not entirely different from fascist thinking: strong leaders, clear gender roles, an obsession with military power and the use of extremist violence to enforce the law.
Such views can be countered using Islamic thought, and predominantly are. Where Islam comes into it is the Islamic admonition to defend fellow Muslims. This is how all Islamic extremism has spread in recent times, from the Mujahidin in Afghanistan to the conflict in Kashmir to Israel/Palestine. I.e, they come from war, and Muslims are recruited to fight.
It is only recently that the defence of fellow Muslims has been turned into an expansionist crusade; the call to create a new caliphate.
America didn't bomb all of Cambodia. Only along the border of Vietnam/Cambodia along the Ho Chi Mihn Trail. The Khmer Rouge was a result of a Cambodian Monarchy propped up by the French that didn't look after all of the population. Communism was running right throughout that part of the world at that time. America had nothing to do with this communist surge.
Forum
Pages: 
