CDZ How can ISIS be beaten ?

[Tehon]

Good luck killing an ideology with bullets. Especially one that has proven useful to Western hegemons.

??? Do you see ISIS as a Western hegemon? I don't.

I see them as a tool of Western hegemons. They are being used to curtail the Shia expansion that resulted from the removal of Saddam Hussein.

 

[320 Years of History]

Good luck killing an ideology with bullets. Especially one that has proven useful to Western hegemons.

??? Do you see ISIS as a Western hegemon? I don't.

I see them as a tool of Western hegemons. They are being used to curtail the Shia expansion that resulted from the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Say what? Would you please explain cogently and credibly (not merely because you happen/want to think so) how and why Western hegemons have co-opted ISIS as the means of "curtailing Shia expansion."

 

[Tehon]

Good luck killing an ideology with bullets. Especially one that has proven useful to Western hegemons.

??? Do you see ISIS as a Western hegemon? I don't.

I see them as a tool of Western hegemons. They are being used to curtail the Shia expansion that resulted from the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Say what? Would you please explain cogently and credibly (not merely because you happen/want to think so) how and why Western hegemons have co-opted ISIS as the means of "curtailing Shia expansion."

Do you understand what the Shia expansion is and how it relates to the Iraq war?

 

[oldsoul]

I put this topic on this forum for a reason so play nice.

ISIS is a threat to modern civilisation. How can it be beaten ?

I've posted my solution approach for how to defeat ISIS here.

Seems barbaric, but how is one expected to counter barberism other than with barberism. I think, while it will likely never be employed, it would work, and be much more cost effective than any other plan I have heard of (short of nuking the entire ME, which I think we can all agree is not a viable option). My only question, and I am not sure if you adressed it at all, is how to implement such a plan. Furthermore, how would you suggest we (as a species) ensure that this type of tactic would only be used as a mode of last resort? I, for one, would not wish to open that pandora's box, if it is at all avoidable. I don't know if we could close it again.

 

[320 Years of History]

I put this topic on this forum for a reason so play nice.

ISIS is a threat to modern civilisation. How can it be beaten ?

I've posted my solution approach for how to defeat ISIS here.

Seems barbaric, but how is one expected to counter barberism other than with barberism. I think, while it will likely never be employed, it would work, and be much more cost effective than any other plan I have heard of (short of nuking the entire ME, which I think we can all agree is not a viable option).

My only question, and I am not sure if you adressed it at all, is how to implement such a plan. Furthermore, how would you suggest we (as a species) ensure that this type of tactic would only be used as a mode of last resort? I, for one, would not wish to open that pandora's box, if it is at all avoidable. I don't know if we could close it again.

There's little question in my mind that it is a barbaric solution approach. Similarly, I can think of other, non-barbaric solution options. What I can't conceive of is that any of them can succeed in creating a "win-win" outcome that doesn't result in the destruction of either "us" or ISIS.

In my mind, the "ISIS-situation" has reached the point of being one for which there are no good solution options and we are now forced to choose the best of several deplorable ones. All the "hows and whys" that has brought the situation to this point is "water under the bridge," IMO. It is and now we must deal with what is, not what could, should or should not have been or be. Rueful? Yes. Real. Also, yes.

Blue:
Well, that is another solution option. I think it's quite implementable. I think too it may carry consequences we cannot circumvent and that amount to our "cutting off our nose to spite our face." That's not to say my suggested strategy has no undesirable consequences, only that the ones it will incur are less detrimental to us than those accruing from "nuking the entire ME."

Red:
I don't recall discussing how to execute the plan/strategy. I agree that the next step, after agreeing to pursue my proposed plan, would be to determine whether there is a means to implement it and if there be, to use it/them to do so. My general belief is that just about anything one is determined to make happen and in turn plans to effect can indeed be done, it merely being a matter of will, not wherewithal.

 

[Elvis Obama]

ISIS is just a homegrown nationalist / religious response to US and European imperialism in the Middle East.

Even if ISIS was 100% eradicated from the face of the earth. There would be another group with the same goals and agenda surface to continue the fight.

People long to be free to determine their own destiny. Which is why this problem will never cease until the western powers pull out of the Middle East. .....

People long to be free to determine their own destiny. What a bunch of BS. 99% of the human race couldn't care less about these philosophical concepts. The other 1% fight for control for two purposes, either the creation of a decent standard of living for the majority of their people or for personal aggrandizement and enrichment. In the ME there are no governments, save Israel, which are interested in providing a decent standard of living for their people. The West has been more of a hindrance than a help in this crucial development of ME leadership, but we're not the only reason this hasn't happened. Until it does, ISIS is just the latest label we put on fanaticism. Fanaticism can only be marginalized by real economic success.

 

[Elvis Obama]

ISIS, it seems to me, are just a bunch of people who have jumped the gun (pun intended). A caliphate, or regional hegemony, is the goal of every ME fanatic. Most are pragmatic enough to realize that terrorism and PR are their only weapons. Conquering and holding territory is absurd, and the notion of forcing Western intervention is a bizarre strategy to say the least. What are the practical limits of terrorism, though? A dirty bomb? Are these fanatics sensible enough to say, no, that's too dangerous for us? That Western retaliation against such a tactic would be overwhelming? I doubt it.

ISIS is just the latest face of ME fanaticism. Eradicating them is necessary, but it will not be decisive in the larger struggle.

 

[Tehon]

Good luck killing an ideology with bullets. Especially one that has proven useful to Western hegemons.

??? Do you see ISIS as a Western hegemon? I don't.

I see them as a tool of Western hegemons. They are being used to curtail the Shia expansion that resulted from the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Say what? Would you please explain cogently and credibly (not merely because you happen/want to think so) how and why Western hegemons have co-opted ISIS as the means of "curtailing Shia expansion."

Do you understand what the Shia expansion is and how it relates to the Iraq war?

Well ok then, based on what you have presented thus far in this thread I should assume you do not understand the Shia expansion. The Shia expansion is the arc of influence, real or imagined, that Iran has gained with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The Saudis believe that Iran now effectively controls a block of land mass from Iran all the way to Lebanon and they very much feel threatened by it.

7. (C) PERSIAN MEDDLING: Prince Muqrin described Iran as "all over the place now." The "Shiite crescent is becoming a full moon," encompassing Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait and Yemen among Iran,s targets. In the Kingdom, he said "we have problems in Medina and Eastern Province." When asked if he saw Iran,s hand in last month's Medina Riots (reftels), he strongly affirmed his belief that they were "definitely" Iranian supported. (Comment: Muqrin's view was not necessarily supported by post's Saudi Shi'a sources.) Muqrin bluntly stated "Iran is becoming a pain in the..." and he expressed hope the President "can get them straight, or straighten them out."

Furthermore they hold the United States responsible. King Abdullah was none too pleased with the GWB administration for going against his wishes and promoting Nour al-Maliki as PM of Iraq.

14. (S) NO HOPE FOR MALIKI: The King said he had "no confidence whatsoever in (Iraqi PM) Maliki, and the Ambassador (Fraker) is well aware of my views." The King affirmed that he had refused former President Bush's entreaties that he meet with Maliki. The King said he had met Maliki early in Maliki's term of office, and the Iraqi had given him a written list of commitments for reconciliation in Iraq, but had failed to follow through on any of them. For this reason, the King said, Maliki had no credibility. "I don,t trust this man," the King stated, "He's an Iranian agent." The King said he had told both Bush and former Vice president Cheney "how can I meet with someone I don,t trust?" Maliki has "opened the door for Iranian influence in Iraq" since taking power, the King said, and he was "not hopeful at all" for Maliki, "or I would have met with him."

And thought the US had to restore it’s credibility.

3. (S) U.S. CREDIBILITY IS CRITICAL: The Bush Administration is now in the past, the King said. Both President Bushes were his friends, but the recent President Bush didn,t take his advice on dealing with issues in the region, and they found their problems "compounded." The King said, "we are ready to consult, provide guidance and to do whatever is necessary. We are people of the region and we know it well." Brennan responded that President Obama wants to listen, and asked what advice the King would offer to President Obama. Abdullah said his one piece of advice was that restoring U.S. credibility in the world was critically important. Brennan responded that this was an important issue for President Obama as well. Brennan said that under President Obama we will restore our credibility. He said the U.S. is a great country and we know what we have to do.

Cable: 09RIYADH447_a
Cable: 09RIYADH445_a

Understanding the reasons why I believe ISIS is a tool of Western Hegemons is predicated on understanding the dynamics of the region. If you are amiable to what I have posted thus far I will continue.

 

[320 Years of History]

Good luck killing an ideology with bullets. Especially one that has proven useful to Western hegemons.

??? Do you see ISIS as a Western hegemon? I don't.

I see them as a tool of Western hegemons. They are being used to curtail the Shia expansion that resulted from the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Say what? Would you please explain cogently and credibly (not merely because you happen/want to think so) how and why Western hegemons have co-opted ISIS as the means of "curtailing Shia expansion."

Do you understand what the Shia expansion is and how it relates to the Iraq war?

It's not the Shia expansion part that I don't understand. It's the Western hegemons having co-opted ISIS into curtailing it.

 

[320 Years of History]

Good luck killing an ideology with bullets. Especially one that has proven useful to Western hegemons.

??? Do you see ISIS as a Western hegemon? I don't.

I see them as a tool of Western hegemons. They are being used to curtail the Shia expansion that resulted from the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Say what? Would you please explain cogently and credibly (not merely because you happen/want to think so) how and why Western hegemons have co-opted ISIS as the means of "curtailing Shia expansion."

Do you understand what the Shia expansion is and how it relates to the Iraq war?

Well ok then, based on what you have presented thus far in this thread I should assume you do not understand the Shia expansion. The Shia expansion is the arc of influence, real or imagined, that Iran has gained with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The Saudis believe that Iran now effectively controls a block of land mass from Iran all the way to Lebanon and they very much feel threatened by it.

7. (C) PERSIAN MEDDLING: Prince Muqrin described Iran as "all over the place now." The "Shiite crescent is becoming a full moon," encompassing Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait and Yemen among Iran,s targets. In the Kingdom, he said "we have problems in Medina and Eastern Province." When asked if he saw Iran,s hand in last month's Medina Riots (reftels), he strongly affirmed his belief that they were "definitely" Iranian supported. (Comment: Muqrin's view was not necessarily supported by post's Saudi Shi'a sources.) Muqrin bluntly stated "Iran is becoming a pain in the..." and he expressed hope the President "can get them straight, or straighten them out."

Furthermore they hold the United States responsible. King Abdullah was none too pleased with the GWB administration for going against his wishes and promoting Nour al-Maliki as PM of Iraq.

14. (S) NO HOPE FOR MALIKI: The King said he had "no confidence whatsoever in (Iraqi PM) Maliki, and the Ambassador (Fraker) is well aware of my views." The King affirmed that he had refused former President Bush's entreaties that he meet with Maliki. The King said he had met Maliki early in Maliki's term of office, and the Iraqi had given him a written list of commitments for reconciliation in Iraq, but had failed to follow through on any of them. For this reason, the King said, Maliki had no credibility. "I don,t trust this man," the King stated, "He's an Iranian agent." The King said he had told both Bush and former Vice president Cheney "how can I meet with someone I don,t trust?" Maliki has "opened the door for Iranian influence in Iraq" since taking power, the King said, and he was "not hopeful at all" for Maliki, "or I would have met with him."

And thought the US had to restore it’s credibility.

3. (S) U.S. CREDIBILITY IS CRITICAL: The Bush Administration is now in the past, the King said. Both President Bushes were his friends, but the recent President Bush didn,t take his advice on dealing with issues in the region, and they found their problems "compounded." The King said, "we are ready to consult, provide guidance and to do whatever is necessary. We are people of the region and we know it well." Brennan responded that President Obama wants to listen, and asked what advice the King would offer to President Obama. Abdullah said his one piece of advice was that restoring U.S. credibility in the world was critically important. Brennan responded that this was an important issue for President Obama as well. Brennan said that under President Obama we will restore our credibility. He said the U.S. is a great country and we know what we have to do.

Cable: 09RIYADH447_a
Cable: 09RIYADH445_a

Understanding the reasons why I believe ISIS is a tool of Western Hegemons is predicated on understanding the dynamics of the region. If you are amiable to what I have posted thus far I will continue.

I literally just now saw the comments above. Let me read it and I'll respond over the weekend.

 

[Tehon]

I put this topic on this forum for a reason so play nice.

ISIS is a threat to modern civilisation. How can it be beaten ?

I've posted my solution approach for how to defeat ISIS here.

Thanks for that. I am not convinced that the slaughter of innocent children would bring an end to anything. In actual fact it would make the situation worse.

Well, that's a possible outcome. I don't know how it would be a plausible one assuming all or nearly all ISIS and ISIS sympathizers are killed.

In the course of achieving the end I've noted, by the means I've noted, I would not be surprised to find something might be made worse. I suspect, however, that if the end I've identified is prosecuted successfully and efficiently, ISIS will too come to an end and that will be that. Goal achieved and no "situation" pertaining to them will afterwards exist; thus that situation, the ISIS situation, certainly won't be worse.

The issue is that you would be creating martyrs to inspire another generation. To actually believe that killing thousands of children is any sort of solution is rather chilling.

You mean to tell me you don't think rounding up millions of Muslim woman and children into some type of concentration camps and sterilizing or killing all those who do not meet a criteria sounds like a good plan. Sheesh, where is your imagination What could possibly go wrong? I'm sure the authorities will check for ISIS verification cards first.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I think that I would prefer a more nuanced approach.

ISIS can only exist physically in a failed state so their options are limited in this respect.

As an ideology we need to look at what feeds it and address that.

What possessed 2 bar owners from Belgium to blow up Paris ?

Its off the radar of rationality.

 

[Tehon]

I think that I would prefer a more nuanced approach.

ISIS can only exist physically in a failed state so their options are limited in this respect.

As an ideology we need to look at what feeds it and address that.

What possessed 2 bar owners from Belgium to blow up Paris ?

Its off the radar of rationality.

As an ideology we need to look at what feeds it and address that.

Absolutely, and we need to start with a review of the Wahhabi/Salafi ideology and address the political aspects of it especially as it relates to Gulf Coast Monarchies.

 

[Tehon]

A madrassa is an Islamic religious school. Many of the Taliban were educated in Saudi-financed madrassas in Pakistan that teach Wahhabism, a particularly austere and rigid form of Islam which is rooted in Saudi Arabia. Around the world, Saudi wealth and charities contributed to an explosive growth of madrassas during the Afghan jihad against the Soviets. During that war (1979-1989), a new kind of madrassa emerged in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region -- not so much concerned about scholarship as making war on infidels. The enemy then was the Soviet Union, today it's America. Here are analyses of the madrassas from interviews with Vali Nasr, an authority on Islamic fundamentalism, and Richard Holbrooke, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. (For more on the role of madrassas in producing militant Islamists, see the story of Haroun Fazul.)


Analyses - Madrassas | PBS - Saudi Time Bomb? | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[Tehon]

??? Do you see ISIS as a Western hegemon? I don't.

I see them as a tool of Western hegemons. They are being used to curtail the Shia expansion that resulted from the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Say what? Would you please explain cogently and credibly (not merely because you happen/want to think so) how and why Western hegemons have co-opted ISIS as the means of "curtailing Shia expansion."

Do you understand what the Shia expansion is and how it relates to the Iraq war?

Well ok then, based on what you have presented thus far in this thread I should assume you do not understand the Shia expansion. The Shia expansion is the arc of influence, real or imagined, that Iran has gained with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The Saudis believe that Iran now effectively controls a block of land mass from Iran all the way to Lebanon and they very much feel threatened by it.

7. (C) PERSIAN MEDDLING: Prince Muqrin described Iran as "all over the place now." The "Shiite crescent is becoming a full moon," encompassing Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait and Yemen among Iran,s targets. In the Kingdom, he said "we have problems in Medina and Eastern Province." When asked if he saw Iran,s hand in last month's Medina Riots (reftels), he strongly affirmed his belief that they were "definitely" Iranian supported. (Comment: Muqrin's view was not necessarily supported by post's Saudi Shi'a sources.) Muqrin bluntly stated "Iran is becoming a pain in the..." and he expressed hope the President "can get them straight, or straighten them out."

Furthermore they hold the United States responsible. King Abdullah was none too pleased with the GWB administration for going against his wishes and promoting Nour al-Maliki as PM of Iraq.

14. (S) NO HOPE FOR MALIKI: The King said he had "no confidence whatsoever in (Iraqi PM) Maliki, and the Ambassador (Fraker) is well aware of my views." The King affirmed that he had refused former President Bush's entreaties that he meet with Maliki. The King said he had met Maliki early in Maliki's term of office, and the Iraqi had given him a written list of commitments for reconciliation in Iraq, but had failed to follow through on any of them. For this reason, the King said, Maliki had no credibility. "I don,t trust this man," the King stated, "He's an Iranian agent." The King said he had told both Bush and former Vice president Cheney "how can I meet with someone I don,t trust?" Maliki has "opened the door for Iranian influence in Iraq" since taking power, the King said, and he was "not hopeful at all" for Maliki, "or I would have met with him."

And thought the US had to restore it’s credibility.

3. (S) U.S. CREDIBILITY IS CRITICAL: The Bush Administration is now in the past, the King said. Both President Bushes were his friends, but the recent President Bush didn,t take his advice on dealing with issues in the region, and they found their problems "compounded." The King said, "we are ready to consult, provide guidance and to do whatever is necessary. We are people of the region and we know it well." Brennan responded that President Obama wants to listen, and asked what advice the King would offer to President Obama. Abdullah said his one piece of advice was that restoring U.S. credibility in the world was critically important. Brennan responded that this was an important issue for President Obama as well. Brennan said that under President Obama we will restore our credibility. He said the U.S. is a great country and we know what we have to do.

Cable: 09RIYADH447_a
Cable: 09RIYADH445_a

Understanding the reasons why I believe ISIS is a tool of Western Hegemons is predicated on understanding the dynamics of the region. If you are amiable to what I have posted thus far I will continue.

I literally just now saw the comments above. Let me read it and I'll respond over the weekend.

Please take your time, I realize it is a lot to process. And I have more for you to consider. This time in relation to Israeli motivations. This document, which dates back to the late 90's, comes from the very neocons who orchestrated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and relates directly to the conflict in Syria.
http://www.dougfeith.com/docs/Clean_Break.pdf

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.

 

[Tehon]

I was hoping to entertain this discussion with Elvis Obama in another thread but alas.........Elvis left the building.
Again from our neocon friend Douglas Feith.

Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.
http://www.dougfeith.com/docs/Clean_Break.pdf

 

[320 Years of History]

I see them as a tool of Western hegemons. They are being used to curtail the Shia expansion that resulted from the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Say what? Would you please explain cogently and credibly (not merely because you happen/want to think so) how and why Western hegemons have co-opted ISIS as the means of "curtailing Shia expansion."

Do you understand what the Shia expansion is and how it relates to the Iraq war?

Well ok then, based on what you have presented thus far in this thread I should assume you do not understand the Shia expansion. The Shia expansion is the arc of influence, real or imagined, that Iran has gained with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The Saudis believe that Iran now effectively controls a block of land mass from Iran all the way to Lebanon and they very much feel threatened by it.

7. (C) PERSIAN MEDDLING: Prince Muqrin described Iran as "all over the place now." The "Shiite crescent is becoming a full moon," encompassing Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait and Yemen among Iran,s targets. In the Kingdom, he said "we have problems in Medina and Eastern Province." When asked if he saw Iran,s hand in last month's Medina Riots (reftels), he strongly affirmed his belief that they were "definitely" Iranian supported. (Comment: Muqrin's view was not necessarily supported by post's Saudi Shi'a sources.) Muqrin bluntly stated "Iran is becoming a pain in the..." and he expressed hope the President "can get them straight, or straighten them out."

Furthermore they hold the United States responsible. King Abdullah was none too pleased with the GWB administration for going against his wishes and promoting Nour al-Maliki as PM of Iraq.

14. (S) NO HOPE FOR MALIKI: The King said he had "no confidence whatsoever in (Iraqi PM) Maliki, and the Ambassador (Fraker) is well aware of my views." The King affirmed that he had refused former President Bush's entreaties that he meet with Maliki. The King said he had met Maliki early in Maliki's term of office, and the Iraqi had given him a written list of commitments for reconciliation in Iraq, but had failed to follow through on any of them. For this reason, the King said, Maliki had no credibility. "I don,t trust this man," the King stated, "He's an Iranian agent." The King said he had told both Bush and former Vice president Cheney "how can I meet with someone I don,t trust?" Maliki has "opened the door for Iranian influence in Iraq" since taking power, the King said, and he was "not hopeful at all" for Maliki, "or I would have met with him."

And thought the US had to restore it’s credibility.

3. (S) U.S. CREDIBILITY IS CRITICAL: The Bush Administration is now in the past, the King said. Both President Bushes were his friends, but the recent President Bush didn,t take his advice on dealing with issues in the region, and they found their problems "compounded." The King said, "we are ready to consult, provide guidance and to do whatever is necessary. We are people of the region and we know it well." Brennan responded that President Obama wants to listen, and asked what advice the King would offer to President Obama. Abdullah said his one piece of advice was that restoring U.S. credibility in the world was critically important. Brennan responded that this was an important issue for President Obama as well. Brennan said that under President Obama we will restore our credibility. He said the U.S. is a great country and we know what we have to do.

Cable: 09RIYADH447_a
Cable: 09RIYADH445_a

Understanding the reasons why I believe ISIS is a tool of Western Hegemons is predicated on understanding the dynamics of the region. If you are amiable to what I have posted thus far I will continue.

I literally just now saw the comments above. Let me read it and I'll respond over the weekend.

Please take your time, I realize it is a lot to process. And I have more for you to consider. This time in relation to Israeli motivations. This document, which dates back to the late 90's, comes from the very neocons who orchestrated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and relates directly to the conflict in Syria.
http://www.dougfeith.com/docs/Clean_Break.pdf

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.

Okay. I have now read the two cables you provided (parts of which comprise the majority of content in your post #28). I quickly perused the "Clean Break" editorial you shared.

Having now examined the content you provided, I see nothing in them that cogently makes the case that "Western hegemons" have co-opted ISIS to do its bidding in curtailing "Shia expansionism." In post #21, you expressly stated that "[ISIS] are being used curtail the Shia expansion" by dint of ISIS being a "tool of Western hegemons."

I asked you to present a cogent and credible case showing those two assertions' verity. At most, one might obliquely be able to infer some sort of ancillary benefit to "Western hegemons" accruing from ISIS' presence in Syria and thereby being a destabilizing force re: the Assad administration which the U.S., to say the least, would just as soon see go the way of the dodo. You have not, however, presented anything rising to the level of a cogent and credible case that your assertions are plausibly and probably true:

• I saw nothing that explicitly identifies which "Western hegemons" you have in mind -- businesses, industries, political blocks, nation states, religious or racial/ethnic identity groups, etc. -- as being those who (1) seek to "curtail Shia expansionism," and (2) do so by using ISIS as one of their tools. At best, I can infer (perhaps correctly, perhaps incorrectly) that at least two of the hegemons you may have in mind are U.S. neoconservatives and one or more political factions within Israel.
• I saw nothing in any of the content you provided that clearly and strongly indicates "Western hegemons" openly or secretly desire to keep ISIS in place, to say nothing of bolstering it, so that it may be used "as a tool" (willing or unwilling) to "curtail Shia expansionism."
• I saw nothing that established or even intimated that "Western hegemons," in their quest to effect the end of Mr. Assad's rule in Syria, are better served by passively or actively retaining ISIS among the instruments used to effect that outcome than they would by destroying ISIS and dealing directly, and independently of co-opting ISIS, with taking down Mr. Assad's regime.
• I saw nothing showing or intimating that "Western hegemons" do or might find enduring ISIS' terrorist acts against them (past and future) is an acceptable cost of effecting the curtailment of "Shia expansionism."
• I saw nothing showing or intimating that "Western hegemons" give a damn about "Shia expansionism."
• I saw nothing that credibly supports Iran's (and presumably others') claim that ISIS is an "American plot to destabilize the region and protect Israel."
• I saw nothing that credibly establishes that the observations one may make of Western nations' support for and opposition of any given organizations/political regimes -- be they Sunni or Shiite -- is more than merely circumstantial. That is, I saw nothing showing that "Western hegemons" give a damn whether the "powers that be" in any given Middle Eastern state, in and of themselves, are Sunni or Shiite.
• I saw nothing indicating that "Western hegemons' " interests are best served by fomenting and perpetuating discordance between Sunni and Shia Muslims.
• I saw nothing indicating that the differences between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims makes a difference to "Western Hegemons."

The bullet points above list out just some of the major failings I see in the content and remarks you provided in response to my request that you offer a cogent and credible argument/explanation of how and why (and by inference "that") Western hegemons have co-opted ISIS as the means of "curtailing Shia expansion."

FWIW, I have no strong view one way or the other about the verity of your assertion, that is, other than that as it stands now, it's unsubstantiated, circumstantial and driven by hearsay and others (Iran's mostly) circumstantially driven and unsubstantiated claims. I am willing to entertain the idea that you might be correct. I am not willing to keep reading "stuff" that is "off point" re: my request and that fails to directly make your case.

I don't have a problem with folks making what strike me as "out of left field" claims, but such claims need to be quite well founded/supported by a damn strong argument, if only to bring them to the "infield," so to speak. You have made what strikes me as "out of left field" claim, and I have asked for a strong case supporting it. You have not delivered on that request.

 

[Tehon]

Say what? Would you please explain cogently and credibly (not merely because you happen/want to think so) how and why Western hegemons have co-opted ISIS as the means of "curtailing Shia expansion."

Do you understand what the Shia expansion is and how it relates to the Iraq war?

Well ok then, based on what you have presented thus far in this thread I should assume you do not understand the Shia expansion. The Shia expansion is the arc of influence, real or imagined, that Iran has gained with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The Saudis believe that Iran now effectively controls a block of land mass from Iran all the way to Lebanon and they very much feel threatened by it.

7. (C) PERSIAN MEDDLING: Prince Muqrin described Iran as "all over the place now." The "Shiite crescent is becoming a full moon," encompassing Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait and Yemen among Iran,s targets. In the Kingdom, he said "we have problems in Medina and Eastern Province." When asked if he saw Iran,s hand in last month's Medina Riots (reftels), he strongly affirmed his belief that they were "definitely" Iranian supported. (Comment: Muqrin's view was not necessarily supported by post's Saudi Shi'a sources.) Muqrin bluntly stated "Iran is becoming a pain in the..." and he expressed hope the President "can get them straight, or straighten them out."

Furthermore they hold the United States responsible. King Abdullah was none too pleased with the GWB administration for going against his wishes and promoting Nour al-Maliki as PM of Iraq.

14. (S) NO HOPE FOR MALIKI: The King said he had "no confidence whatsoever in (Iraqi PM) Maliki, and the Ambassador (Fraker) is well aware of my views." The King affirmed that he had refused former President Bush's entreaties that he meet with Maliki. The King said he had met Maliki early in Maliki's term of office, and the Iraqi had given him a written list of commitments for reconciliation in Iraq, but had failed to follow through on any of them. For this reason, the King said, Maliki had no credibility. "I don,t trust this man," the King stated, "He's an Iranian agent." The King said he had told both Bush and former Vice president Cheney "how can I meet with someone I don,t trust?" Maliki has "opened the door for Iranian influence in Iraq" since taking power, the King said, and he was "not hopeful at all" for Maliki, "or I would have met with him."

And thought the US had to restore it’s credibility.

3. (S) U.S. CREDIBILITY IS CRITICAL: The Bush Administration is now in the past, the King said. Both President Bushes were his friends, but the recent President Bush didn,t take his advice on dealing with issues in the region, and they found their problems "compounded." The King said, "we are ready to consult, provide guidance and to do whatever is necessary. We are people of the region and we know it well." Brennan responded that President Obama wants to listen, and asked what advice the King would offer to President Obama. Abdullah said his one piece of advice was that restoring U.S. credibility in the world was critically important. Brennan responded that this was an important issue for President Obama as well. Brennan said that under President Obama we will restore our credibility. He said the U.S. is a great country and we know what we have to do.

Cable: 09RIYADH447_a
Cable: 09RIYADH445_a

Understanding the reasons why I believe ISIS is a tool of Western Hegemons is predicated on understanding the dynamics of the region. If you are amiable to what I have posted thus far I will continue.

I literally just now saw the comments above. Let me read it and I'll respond over the weekend.

Please take your time, I realize it is a lot to process. And I have more for you to consider. This time in relation to Israeli motivations. This document, which dates back to the late 90's, comes from the very neocons who orchestrated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and relates directly to the conflict in Syria.
http://www.dougfeith.com/docs/Clean_Break.pdf

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.

Okay. I have now read the two cables you provided (parts of which comprise the majority of content in your post #28). I quickly perused the "Clean Break" editorial you shared.

Having now examined the content you provided, I see nothing in them that cogently makes the case that "Western hegemons" have co-opted ISIS to do its bidding in curtailing "Shia expansionism." In post #21, you expressly stated that "[ISIS] are being used curtail the Shia expansion" by dint of ISIS being a "tool of Western hegemons."

I asked you to present a cogent and credible case showing those two assertions' verity. At most, one might obliquely be able to infer some sort of ancillary benefit to "Western hegemons" accruing from ISIS' presence in Syria and thereby being a destabilizing force re: the Assad administration which the U.S., to say the least, would just as soon see go the way of the dodo. You have not, however, presented anything rising to the level of a cogent and credible case that your assertions are plausibly and probably true:

• I saw nothing that explicitly identifies which "Western hegemons" you have in mind -- businesses, industries, political blocks, nation states, religious or racial/ethnic identity groups, etc. -- as being those who (1) seek to "curtail Shia expansionism," and (2) do so by using ISIS as one of their tools. At best, I can infer (perhaps correctly, perhaps incorrectly) that at least two of the hegemons you may have in mind are U.S. neoconservatives and one or more political factions within Israel.
• I saw nothing in any of the content you provided that clearly and strongly indicates "Western hegemons" openly or secretly desire to keep ISIS in place, to say nothing of bolstering it, so that it may be used "as a tool" (willing or unwilling) to "curtail Shia expansionism."
• I saw nothing that established or even intimated that "Western hegemons," in their quest to effect the end of Mr. Assad's rule in Syria, are better served by passively or actively retaining ISIS among the instruments used to effect that outcome than they would by destroying ISIS and dealing directly, and independently of co-opting ISIS, with taking down Mr. Assad's regime.
• I saw nothing showing or intimating that "Western hegemons" do or might find enduring ISIS' terrorist acts against them (past and future) is an acceptable cost of effecting the curtailment of "Shia expansionism."
• I saw nothing showing or intimating that "Western hegemons" give a damn about "Shia expansionism."
• I saw nothing that credibly supports Iran's (and presumably others') claim that ISIS is an "American plot to destabilize the region and protect Israel."
• I saw nothing that credibly establishes that the observations one may make of Western nations' support for and opposition of any given organizations/political regimes -- be they Sunni or Shiite -- is more than merely circumstantial. That is, I saw nothing showing that "Western hegemons" give a damn whether the "powers that be" in any given Middle Eastern state, in and of themselves, are Sunni or Shiite.
• I saw nothing indicating that "Western hegemons' " interests are best served by fomenting and perpetuating discordance between Sunni and Shia Muslims.
• I saw nothing indicating that the differences between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims makes a difference to "Western Hegemons."

The bullet points above list out just some of the major failings I see in the content and remarks you provided in response to my request that you offer a cogent and credible argument/explanation of how and why (and by inference "that") Western hegemons have co-opted ISIS as the means of "curtailing Shia expansion."

FWIW, I have no strong view one way or the other about the verity of your assertion, that is, other than that as it stands now, it's unsubstantiated, circumstantial and driven by hearsay and others (Iran's mostly) circumstantially driven and unsubstantiated claims. I am willing to entertain the idea that you might be correct. I am not willing to keep reading "stuff" that is "off point" re: my request and that fails to directly make your case.

I don't have a problem with folks making what strike me as "out of left field" claims, but such claims need to be quite well founded/supported by a damn strong argument, if only to bring them to the "infield," so to speak. You have made what strikes me as "out of left field" claim, and I have asked for a strong case supporting it. You have not delivered on that request.

Yes of course it is all circumstantial, but you knew that had to be the case when you first asked the question. I have more to offer but again, it's only circumstantial and I realize that for some jurists no amount of circumstantial evidence could ever prove a case, especially so in this setting I believe. Nor do I have any desire to convince you any further of my beliefs more than I have done, you may discard my "left field" comment at your pleasure. Thank you anyway for entertaining my posts and giving them careful consideration.

 

[320 Years of History]

Yes of course it is all circumstantial, but you knew that had to be the case when you first asked the question. I have more to offer but again, it's only circumstantial and I realize that for some jurists no amount of circumstantial evidence could ever prove a case, especially so in this setting I believe. Nor do I have any desire to convince you any further of my beliefs more than I have done, you may discard my "left field" comment at your pleasure. Thank you anyway for entertaining my posts and giving them careful consideration.

No, actually I didn't know that. I gave you the benefit of my doubt about the veracity of your claim and gave you the opportunity to present "something," that rises above the level of inflammatory rhetoric. I hoped you might have a well developed inductive argument to offer. (I did know that you weren't going to present a deductive one.) I had hoped that you'd present something showing preponderantly that what may, at first blush, seem circumstantial is indeed causally correlated to the assertion one aims to support.

I'm not among the crowd that demands deductively incontrovertible proof of things. For example, I happen to be a theist, yet I am well aware of the failings of the inductive arguments supporting the assertion "there is a God." My recognition of those failings is why I reject as a basis for political/social action and legislation any argument based largely on religious dogma and/or decree.

So, no, I am willing to accept credible inductive arguments, provide they move what seems to be circumstantial to a position of seeming to be both plausible and probable. Broadly speaking, I see all claims' truth as falling somewhere on a continuum:

1. Impossible (this is the realm of concurrently existing, in space and time, irresistible forces and immovable objects; of things/ideas like 1+1=3>5)
2. Extremely unlikely, but nonetheless possible
3. Unlikely, but nonetheless possible
4. As likely as not, but nonetheless possible
5. More likely than not, and obviously possible
6. Vastly more likely than not, and obviously possible
7. Guaranteed to be so (this is the realm solely of valid deductive arguments)

The claims you made sit, for me, about at #3. I was hoping you'd come up with something that moved my confidence in it's veracity to about #5, not a big move, but a meaningful one. I'm willing to give a fair hearing of most claims, including those I consider as "out of left field." But "fair" does not mean a lower standard of cogency and rigor that I require to move the claim from one point on my continuum to another. If it be you are not able or not willing to present a rigorous case in support of your claims, fine. I can understand how that might be so; any number of perfectly legit reasons can make that be so. Based on the red text above, I infer that you are now either unwilling or unable to do so. Fair enough.

 

[Tehon]

Yes of course it is all circumstantial, but you knew that had to be the case when you first asked the question. I have more to offer but again, it's only circumstantial and I realize that for some jurists no amount of circumstantial evidence could ever prove a case, especially so in this setting I believe. Nor do I have any desire to convince you any further of my beliefs more than I have done, you may discard my "left field" comment at your pleasure. Thank you anyway for entertaining my posts and giving them careful consideration.

No, actually I didn't know that. I gave you the benefit of my doubt about the veracity of your claim and gave you the opportunity to present "something," that rises above the level of inflammatory rhetoric. I hoped you might have a well developed inductive argument to offer. (I did know that you weren't going to present a deductive one.) I had hoped that you'd present something showing preponderantly that what may, at first blush, seem circumstantial is indeed causally correlated to the assertion one aims to support.

I'm not among the crowd that demands deductively incontrovertible proof of things. For example, I happen to be a theist, yet I am well aware of the failings of the inductive arguments supporting the assertion "there is a God." My recognition of those failings is why I reject as a basis for political/social action and legislation any argument based largely on religious dogma and/or decree.

So, no, I am willing to accept credible inductive arguments, provide they move what seems to be circumstantial to a position of seeming to be both plausible and probable. Broadly speaking, I see all claims' truth as falling somewhere on a continuum:

1. Impossible (this is the realm of concurrently existing, in space and time, irresistible forces and immovable objects; of things/ideas like 1+1=3>5)
2. Extremely unlikely, but nonetheless possible
3. Unlikely, but nonetheless possible
4. As likely as not, but nonetheless possible
5. More likely than not, and obviously possible
6. Vastly more likely than not, and obviously possible
7. Guaranteed to be so (this is the realm solely of valid deductive arguments)

The claims you made sit, for me, about at #3. I was hoping you'd come up with something that moved my confidence in it's veracity to about #5, not a big move, but a meaningful one. I'm willing to give a fair hearing of most claims, including those I consider as "out of left field." But "fair" does not mean a lower standard of cogency and rigor that I require to move the claim from one point on my continuum to another. If it be you are not able or not willing to present a rigorous case in support of your claims, fine. I can understand how that might be so; any number of perfectly legit reasons can make that be so. Based on the red text above, I infer that you are now either unwilling or unable to do so. Fair enough.

I did not believe that I could build my case in a single post so my attempt was to build it in successive posts. That was probably not clear to you. Each post was to be contingent on the acceptance of the merits of the previous post. There is just too much information out there, all of it circumstantial unfortunately, for me to be able to find it and put it coherently into a single post.

My first post contained original source documents of the declassified nature and intended to show the perceived threat felt at the highest level of Saudi governance and also to show where the Saudis placed the blame. From there we would have proceeded assuming you were comfortable with the source documents and the verity of the claim. It was not intended as anything more than that.

The clean break post was just exuberance at having just discovered that document and probably should have been presented with more forethought or not at all as it predates the Iraq war.