Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

Arms, while being necessary for an army, are not the causation of the army.

"I'm sorry, but this is totally absurd and without foundation." --> No need to be sorry. Let me explain.

"The thousands of young men and women who went from Asia, Africa, Europe and Russia to Syria went because they wanted to fight the genocidal
al-Assad, who was using Russian weapons to slaughter innocent Sunni women and children."

Amateurish at best. Just as al-Assad cannot fight without weapons and you lament all day long about Russians providing him weapons, these thousands of young men and women could not have been fighting without weapons. As just about everybody in town other than you seem to know...those weapons came from the US! With our administration (led by Hilary and the war hawks) leading the way.


"and later they joined ISIS and formed its backbone."
You need some crash course in the middle east. If you read the news from say 10 years back, there was no ISIS. These people did not go and join ISIS. These **ARE** the people who morphed into the cadre of ISIS. And that is how the hawks became responsible (yet again) for this (I mean yet another) pile of mess. Hope that helps explain things a bit.


"Correlation is not causation, and I'm not sure that there's even much correlation." No doubt that you fancy yourself as a big intellectual. But being a PhD in Physics myself, this education in correlation-causation is fairly cliched.

indyboy wrote: > Hilary is responsible because she was trying her her proxy war
> approach arming these militants against al-Assad and this whole
> plan backfired and is hugely responsible for the rise of
> ISIS.

I'm sorry, but this is totally absurd and without foundation. The
thousands of young men and women who went from Asia, Africa, Europe
and Russia to Syria went because they wanted to fight the genocidal
al-Assad, who was using Russian weapons to slaughter innocent Sunni
women and children. They joined Jabhat al-Nusra and other al-Qaeda
linked militias, and later they joined ISIS and formed its backbone.
To say that they went because of Hillary is bizarre. Correlation is
not causation, and I'm not sure that there's even much correlation.

Just firing away "this is utter nonsense" and "that is absurd" does not a point make.

Neither does
Rand Paul = Gen-Xer => Stupid
John not= Gen Xer => Smart.

Let's stick to the points and have a valid discussion on foreign policy.

Yes, this president is responsible because he selected Hilary. Hilary is responsible because she was trying her her proxy war approach arming these militants against al-Assad and this whole plan backfired and is hugely responsible for the rise of ISIS. The Republican hawks in congress did not authorize this - of course, everyone that was done by the executive...we all have basic understanding of how the government works - but they are part of this clueless bunch of people who actively supported and continue to support such these ill-thought ideas . And for the latter, Rand holds them responsible also.

Please read --> """They created these people. ISIS is all over Libya because these same hawks in my party loved -- they loved [former Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya. They just wanted more of it."

What part of this are you having a hard time grasping ?

I don't even know what you're talking about. Here's what Rand Paul
said:

Rand Paul wrote: > "I would say it's exactly the opposite. ISIS exists and grew
> stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms
> indiscriminately. And most of those arms were snatched up by
> ISIS. These hawks also wanted to bomb [Syrian President Bashar
> al-Assad], which would have made ISIS's job even easier. They
> created these people. ISIS is all over Libya because these same
> hawks in my party loved -- they loved [former Secretary of State]
> Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya. They just wanted more of
> it."
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/2 ... 52802.html

To say that ISIS exists because of Republican hawks is utter nonsense,
and so absurd that it reflects a world view devoid of reality.

We're going through 8 years of one President who has no clue what's
going on the world, and yet thinks he knows more than anyone else, and
it's been disastrous. Rand Paul is the same, except that he believes
a different collection of nonsense.

By the way, Rand Paul was born in 1963, and Barack Obama was born
in 1961. So they're both early Gen-Xers.

"There were no jihadists heading for Syria during the Bush administration, and there were no jihadists heading for Syria during Obama's first term, so neither Bush or Obama can be held responsible for creating ISIS. "

Oh my. I am reading further down and interesting to see how many things you get wrong literally sentence after sentence. The main point is that WE (the Americans) went and armed these jihadists. Nobody is arguing that this situation started with al-Assad cracking down on his people (and that did not happen during the Bush regime. Yes, we know that) but that does NOT mean that we did not have a hand in creating ISIS. Left to himself, al-Assad would have (unfairly) crushed his opposition. The opposition existed primarily because the CIA funded it and was hugely responsible for attracting these jihadists to Syria. And then it morphed into ISIS to the horror of Hilary/McCain and all the We-need-a-strong-foreign-policy idiots. and next thing we were comically fighting the same bunch of people we funded.

Anyhow, your statements are riddled with errors of logic sentence after sentence making it hard to write a rebuttal.

"In the political news the last few days, it seems that both the Democratic President Barack Obama and the Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul have come to full agreement that ISIS was created by the Republicans. This conclusion is absurd on its face, since ISIS was formed in Syria, not Iraq."

There. Typical neocon republican speak. Too many errors in just two sentences to correct. Even your allegation is incorrect let alone the conclusion. Please go back and read carefully what Rand said.

What he said is that we were responsible for arming many of militants fighting against al-Assad. This was in line with Hilary Clinton's mantra at that time that we should arm the 'moderate' militants against al-Assad which belies any understanding of what goes on these places. There are so many militant groups at the ground level with so many names and people switching names and sides almost daily that this is an impossible task. Moreover, the idea of arming these militants against al-Assad was not only Hilary's idea but also widely supported by the likes of neocons like Mccain who also have a hard time grasping the complexities of foreign policy just about anywhere. So yes, the rise of ISIS was indeed seeded by arming of these militants in the attempt to bring down al-Assad who was the key bad guy before ISIS became the main target. In short, taking sides in such conflicts backfired the way it has on America time and again. Bad bad idea as time has proved out again and again.And in this assertion he was commenting against Hilary's (and Obama's) policy at that time and not supporting Obama in any way as one might misread from your statement.

Now these poor foreign policy ideas of Obama/Hilary at that time were indeed being supported by the likes of McCain and Grahm and the average Republican neocons who were railing against al-Assad at that time before ISIS became the bigger problem for them ! THAT was his point.

Hope I helped you understand Rand's position and why your statement is really meaningless with regards to what he said.

28-May-15 World View -- ISIS stokes sectarian Sunni-Shia clashes across the Mideast and Asia


Sunni Arabs are being forced to choose between ISIS and Shias

** 28-May-15 World View -- ISIS stokes sectarian Sunni-Shia clashes across the Mideast and Asia
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e150528



Contents:
ISIS stokes sectarian Sunni-Shia clashes across the Mideast and Asia
Iraq's government changes name of military operation to recapture Ramadi
Sunni Arabs are being forced to choose between ISIS and Shias


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Pakistan, Karachi, Ismailis, Shias,
Lashkar-e Jhangvi, LeJ, Jundullah, Taliban, Saudi Arabia,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh,
Iraq, Ramadi, Tikrit, Hashid Shaabi, popular mobilization units,
Operation Labaik ya Hussein, Operation Labaik ya Iraq,
Hussein ibn Ali, Husayn ibn Ali, Battle of Karbala,
Syria, Bashar al-Assad, Lebanon, Ahmad Al-Naqib, Rafidites,
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaedi in Iraq, AQI, Jordan