US service member injured in rocket attack in Iraq

You would think... but the Centers for Disease Control simply sold it and is not making a mystery of it.

Building factories to make WMD's is what the UK did together with Saddam.

"lots of people" but the US authorities that looked into it, and the UK authorities that looked into it.
Both say the same, about that Saddam did not had WMD weapons.
Them are the facts. I'm not interested why others follow the lies of the GOP.
Plenty of people follow Qanon nonsense. Not seeing any need to explain that,
while the facts are what they are: no WMD according to the governemtns who previously claimed there were.

 

I am saying exactly what I uploaded.
No paraphrasing required.


But, respecting your concern I share;
I always check under my bed and in my bedroom closet
for Communist before falling asleep.


Moi

Meanwhile In
​

 

​

It's fascinating how the hard left dismiss Communism but can rail against
the Fascists (ignoring America fought the Facists)

It's clear that most of these people never read anything about Stalin's
purges, Lenin's attempt to start WW2, Stalin aiding Hitler to start WW2,
the deadly 1930 purges, the gulags, the great terrors, Mao's Cultural
Revolution, the 80 million dead during Mao's famines, Stalin's famines
in the Ukraine, the Nth Korean famines, the re-education camps, Ho
Chi Minh's assassination of children as a terror weapon, Ho's machine
gunning of Catholics fleeing to Sth Vietnam, Pol Pot's Cambodia
Communist Party slyly renamed "Khmer Rouge" by French radicals, the
Great Leap Forward, the terror campaigns of Western Communist parties
and so on, so on. The death toll was about 250,000,000, and not counting
the destroyed economies and broken lives.

Yet, George Bush and his WMD's, or Trump's tax return, or Nixon's spying
on Democrats.... we have to focus on that, don't we?

It's no wonder the hard left clutch at straws, safety ensconced in liberal
Capitalist democracies.

 

Haha, good one.

 

So lets hear it?

The bad guys

So you do support the SDF?

 

Sure I support the Kurds .. why not .. but they have nothing to do with the Anti Assad forces who were trying to take over Syria - as desperate as you are to pretend otherwise .. in hopes of hiding from your mind - the historical fact that Obama was allied with Al Qaeda in 2 wars for mucy of the last decade .. that Obama created armed, supported, and supplied the Islamic State .. who you think were trying to bring freedom and democracy to Syria .. in some twisted mental gymnastics.

 

It wasn't Obama, it was US Foreign Policy that does not change with whoever is in government. Al Queda existed before Obama was in government. US Foreign Policy dictated that there is not to be any peace in the Middle East, the area shall be kept in constant conflict. The US will support any side that is in danger of losing any conflict or agreeing peace. We saw it when Kurdistan and Iraq were discussing a peace plan in early 1970s. We saw it in the Iraq/Iran war where initially the US supported Iraq. When a truce was becoming likely, the US started covertly supporting Iran by passing over intelligence on Iraqi forces. This ensured that the war lasted two years longer, the direct consequence of which was Iraq invading Kuwait. Rinse and repeat

 

Of course it was Obama - he was commander and Chief and leader of the operation. - and operation that has nothing to do with the Kurds .. or Iran/Iraq wars - or invading Kuwait.

The one thing you got right was that US Foreign policy wished that Syria be destabilized - probably over the energy corridor that Assad refused to the western backed consortia.

ISIS in Iraq - is not what became the Islamic State - Eventually the same leader but to not confuse the two as if one came from the other .. as the Islamic State did not come from ISIS - Sure there were some fighters who came over from Iraq - but the conflict was initially fought by hundreds of different Syrian Islamist Groups - Same Ilk as ISIS - but not the same group.

The main / largest/leading fighting groups in the first couple of Years were Al Nusra - and the Islamic Front - IF being made up of many smaller groups that coalesced under IF or Al Nusra .. and there were other smaller groups but these were the main ones that the smaller groups would fall under. including the Foreign fighters .. later on some went to ISIS and others to the Al Nusra side - but both part of the new Islamic State that was fromed .. declared in late 2013..

From then on ISIS - Al Qaeda/Al Nusra were the two main groups within the new Islamic State .. the State that Obama created - by arming, supporting and supplying this radical Islamist proxy army.

 

It wasn't Obama, because the commander and chief who started this was George W Bush. He started a war under his cunning fake news about WMD's who were never there. It was after GWB failed to trick the people about an 9/11-Al Qaida-Saddam link that also wasn't there. So he went to war, and deliberately pushed the country into total anarchy. ISIS was born under those circumstances under the watch of the US while GWB was it's commander in chief. The US is fully responsible for it, since that comes as the percs of being the occupying power.

Remember GWB had that mission accomplish thing, and than he handed over his mess to Obama.
Kind of the same thing with Donald. Obama handed him the economy on a golden plate.
Donald went on a borrowing frenzy, with no clue how to repay it all back.
He mismanaged the pandemic with his claim that it will go away like a miracle,
swallow hydrocockeline or whatever.... and handed Biden a total wreck.

It is what it is. And so the country just jo-jo's around, while China profits,
while the GOP stupidly points fingers at the Dems... as if the Dems caused the last messes.
It's all whatever flies during elections. Mostly dirt. And people are gullible as little children.

 

Everything you say is correct - sans the part about Obama - and on this basis I am sensing a partisan blind spot - and further can sense you do not quite assess the board from an understanding of the fact that the Establishment is both Red and Blue.

On the other hand - I have seen your posts - and you search out information - and are bang on in much of what you say .. so this perplexes me a bit.

Yes - this whole mess started long ago - when we decided to use the Islamists in Afghanistan - indoctrinated in the extremist Salafi ideology El Saud - as a proxy army against Russia - this is back when Bin Laden was are friend and ally. working in close connection with El Saud - as he is Royalty by Marriage. This is a mover and a shaker - very educated.

"He helped to fund the Mujahideen by funneling arms, money, and fighters from the Arab world into Afghanistan, and gained popularity among many Arabs.[12] In 1988, he formed al-Qaeda" wiki

He was an arms dealer and a revolutionary at the same time - highly connected .. US policy in the ME - and Israel after this time period went considerably down-hill - at least from the perspective of an Islamist Ideological Revolutionary. .. well - and lets face it - Muslims in General..

This culminated in 911 - after which we decided to attack Iraq - Saddam being and ideological arch enemy of Obama - and Salafi extremists in general - as Iraq was a Secular nation - So this made no sense .. El Saud ideology being the root cause.. and well known as such at the time.

Installation of a Shia Regime - rather than a coalition - was a move too stupid to not be intentional. All the high level Sunni of the previous regime - and lower level - were thrown onto the streets - and so they formed armed militia's and engaged in civil war -

Prior to Saddams removal there was no significant Al Qaeda presence in Iraq - After we had a convoluted mix of all kinds of different groups fighting the civil war... Al Qaeda being one of them - gaining in manpower and strength.. Our actions were a rallying call to Holy Jihad - and this is no secret to anyone.

From 911 for the next decade we were mired in Iraq - dealing with the mess we created - fighting the anti Govt side of the rebellion - calling this a battle against "Al Qaeda" - which it was in part - in the last years of the Bush admin - and with the surge - Al Qaeda in Iraq had been reduced to not much - many of the towns who formerly supported this group - had defected to the Gov't side.

This group had next to nothing to do with the events that would unfold in Syria - other than being folks united in the same cause - ridding the ME of the dreaded " Secularism"

In Syria there were a large number of Salafist / radical Islamist - groups. The most prominent wing of Al Qaeda in Syria was known as Al Nusra - but there were hundreds of other Salafist groups..

It was these groups that took over the protest movement - and later engaged in Armed insurrection.. Al Qaeda in Iraq "ISIS" and spirited fighters dreaming the dream - joined in from Iraq - and numerous other nations .. heed the call to Holy Jihad.

Obama led a large group of nations in a massive effort to arm, supply, and support these Jihadists - who then went on to form a new Islamic State - which came to be led by Al Baghdadi - with other regions within the Islamic State led by Al Nusra - funny we didn't hear much about the leader of that province of the Islamic State.

So yes - while Obama was handed the sht show .. he certainly took a pro-active approach to exacerbating the problem.

 

You're wrong about it. If you really want to go anal about it... ISIS started in Jordan under a different name. In 2004, due to GWB total catastrophe of occupying Iraq since 2003, it breached out in Iraq, renamed itself and became the Iraq branch of Al Qaida. To than rebrand itself in 2006 and called themselves Islamic State of Iraq. And THAN in 2013 it became Islamic State and the Levant.... and THAT depending on what language you speak is exactly the same as ISIL / ISIS / IS / Dash. And by adding the Levant part, it breached over to Syria. ISIS really did not care about a border between the countries.


But since it basically was a total no show in Jordan, it's regarded as a group that spawned INSIDE Iraq and than breached over to Syria. And it did start all due to GWB total disaster of just having an idea to destroy a country, with total disregard how to control it. It's not really rocket science that destroying a regular army is one thing, but that LOADS of people would go underground and join some group for an asymmetric war. The US simply sucks in those asymmetric wars, unlike Iran and Syria.

 

You say "You are wrong about it" - but don't say what you think that I said was wrong .. and since I don't disagree with any of the info you provided .. I have no idea what you might be referring to.

You say ISIS breached over to Syria - but give no support for this claim - no details.

I agree - and already stated that ISIS fighters from Iraq came to fight in Syria - some of which went on to be members of ISIS - and Baghdadi ended up leading the show.

So what did I get wrong ?

 

I quoted you in red, to what I disagree with.

Yeah well. It's not hard to look up the history of ISIS. You went wrong with "This group had next to nothing to do with the events that would unfold in Syria".
It's the exact same group. ISIS started in Iraq, and than wobbled over to Syria. They really did not care that some western power drew a border there.
It was all a wack a mole thing of getting rid of ISIS here, to see them pop up there.

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/timeline-the-rise-spread-and-fall-the-islamic-state

 

They didn't - other than what I mentioned... and you have not stated anything contrary to this. A new Islamic State was declared in late 2013 a per your post ... you do not give any information on how this new state was formed - as I did .. or the war that had been raging for 2 years prior to the formation of this new state.

Your claim that this new Islamic State was the exact same group as ISIS in Iraq is patent nonsense on steroids . a demonstrable falsehood.

Sorry .. but you are dead wrong.

 

At one point they were about to take over Iraq, filling the vacuum created when Obama pulled our ground forces out saying no boots on the ground. They were stopped when we put some boots back on the ground and Syria was pretty much a soft target for them. Then Obama decided maybe we could be friends if we armed them. Didn't work out. Russia just disregarded his red line and stepped in to save their friend.

 

No, the SDF are trying to build and free and democratic Syria, it was they who crushed AQ/ISIS

 

It was all a wack a mole thing of getting rid of ISIS here, to see them pop up there.
They used to be IN Bagdad, and ended up having their HQ in Raqqa.

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/timeline-the-rise-spread-and-fall-the-islamic-state

You can google for maps and find things like this one showing it's all 1 and the same group.

 

The SDF did not fight Assad in the civil war - for the 20th time.. They were fighting on the same side as Assad - against the Islamic State - against the anti Assad Forces that Obama was arming and supporting.

You are not confused - as we have been through this 20 times - you are just in denial

 

Indeed the hundreds of different radical Islamist groups coalesced into a new Islamic State - ISIS - which also included Al Nusra - and this is why ..why your claim that this was the same group as ISIS in Iraq if false.

 

GWB never filled the vacuum when he removed Saddam Hussein. GWB + friends had around 180,000 soldiers vs around 25 million Iraqi's. That's about 140 soldiers on 100,000 civilians. The US got like 240 cops on 100,000 civilians. And soldiers make lousy cops. Israel got like 340 cops on 100,000 citizens. And you could argue that the heavy policing situation in Israel would be kind of what Iraq needed too when it was in a massive power vacuum. What GWB was a far cry for what was needed.

The thing is, the guy never had ANY plan of what to do after winning the war. GWB always set his mind to destroy Iraq. He had a no fly zone installed in Iraq for the supposedly sake to protect Kurds and the Shia population. But in fact, the US just used it for their bombing campaign, massacring civilians left and right and the closer the US got to invading Iraq, the more bombs just happen to drop. Maybe you recall that the US had a very easy victory in Iraq.... after bombing it's army for a decade with total disregard to civilian life. It all started way before 9/11. After 9/11 it was GWB who officially tried to tie Saddam Hussein with Al Qaida as well to invent a way to attack the country. They than switched to that alleged myth of Saddam having WMD's, which many still believe is true, even when the US and UK government concluded it was all fake. The US simply got blood on their hands. Nothing easier to be in denial about the war mongering GOP.

And all that time,... no plans what to do after Saddam left the stage.

 

You say that, when I just sourced:
- al Masri announces the establishment of the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI), with Abu Omar al Baghdadi as its leader.
- April 2010: Abu Bakr al Baghdadi becomes the leader of ISI after a joint U.S.-Iraqi operations kills Abu Omar al Baghdadi and Abu Ayyub al Masri.
- The group changed its name to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in 2013. ISIS launched an offensive on Mosul and Tikrit in June 2014. On June 29, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi announced the formation of a caliphate stretching from Aleppo in Syria to Diyala in Iraq, and renamed the group the Islamic State.

lol....

 

He had a plan, it just didn't work out. What was never understood before the invasion was just why Saddam needed to be so ruthless. Bush pushed ahead with the surge and handed over a relatively stable situation which was then snafued all to hell. "Bush made me do it" became the fall back and the whole region nearly went up in flames.

 

Bring them home to the United States of Petri Dish, where 500 000 Americans died of the C-19 in the past 10 months.

Lets face it, they are safer there than here. Its weird people are so concerned about one injured service man, and say "nah, who cares" about half a million dead right here in US. We have only 2 500 troops in Iraq, mostly to secure the massive US Embassy compound.

 

Absolute nonsense. Saddam, as a Sunni, attacked the Shia and the Kurds. It was an ethnic religious war against them for the sake to remain in power. He was utterly ruthless against them, while they had nothing to do with Al Qaida or ISIS, who are Sunni as well. While Bush had no plan, other than have a government there that would comply with US interests, like Saddam ones did, like the Shah of Iran did, like the Saudi's currently do.

While GWB had no plan to stabilize the country. As noted before, he needed +60% more troops to be on par with the amount the US needs to keep things in check, and well over 200% more troops to be on par with Israel. That's not just a mildly off and trying to wing it. That's just going in blind with no plan.

 

I didn't say Saddam had anything to do with AQ or ISIS. I stand by what I said.