That's from a Washington Post article titled "Iraqis think the U.S. is in cahoots with the Islamic State, and it is hurting the war."
On the front lines of the battle against the Islamic State, suspicion of the United States runs deep. Iraqi fighters say they have all seen the videos purportedly showing U.S. helicopters airdropping weapons to the militants, and many claim they have friends and relatives who have witnessed similar instances of collusion.The response from the U.S. military is that the idea is too ridiculous to warrant a response and: "The Iranians and the Iranian-backed Shiite militias are really pushing this line of propaganda, that the United States is supporting ISIL. It’s part of the Iranian propaganda machine."
Ordinary people also have seen the videos, heard the stories and reached the same conclusion — one that might seem absurd to Americans but is widely believed among Iraqis — that the United States is supporting the Islamic State for a variety of pernicious reasons that have to do with asserting U.S. control over Iraq, the wider Middle East and, perhaps, its oil.
(By the way, it's interesting that WaPo writes out "Islamic State" about 20 times in that article, and the acronym — ISIS or ISIL — doesn't appear at all.)
Posts
30 comments:
ISIS is the name. ISIL is the administration insistance that it's got nothing to do with its screwups in Syria and Iraq, replacing Syria with Levant. Saying ISIL is tone-deafness, just saying that "I am a propagandist." It sticks out every time.
Tone-deafness is the hallmark of Obama.
Ann Althouse said ...
By the way, it's interesting that WaPo writes out "Islamic State" about 20 times in that article.
They have computers to do that sort of thing these days. It's a modern world.
Tell me how I'm supposed to know who to believe.
Tell me.
rhhardin: It's absolutely not tone-deafness. It's used very deliberately by Obama because "the Levant" includes what is now the state of Israel, which all true believers (like him) think should be part of the new Islamic caliphate.
FWIW the Intel community insists on ISIL over ISIS because it better represents the groups desire to install the Caliphate over not just Syria and Iraq, but the entire Levant. (I was there for that discussion)
The Middle East ones on conspiracy theories. I'm not surprised that this is one of them. It probably would not have legs if we hadn't dithered around about supporting the Iraqi government like we did with the Syrian rebels. If the US is not supporting us, they therefore must be supporting the other side.
They think the US doesn't have their back...and they are right.
...that the United States is supporting _______________ for a variety of pernicious reasons that have to do with asserting U.S. control over Iraq, the wider Middle East and, perhaps, its oil.
Why shouldn't Iraqi's believe what the American left has been telling them for 20 years? Just fill in the blank.
"AReasonableMan said...
Ann Althouse said ...
By the way, it's interesting that WaPo writes out "Islamic State" about 20 times in that article.
They have computers to do that sort of thing these days. It's a modern world."
Love for you to explain how "computers" are responsible.
Matt Drudge had some very thoughtful comments on this issue:
"We never really heard of ISIS until recently and I remember when that name first started coming up. Do you know that it was designed to be confused with Darrell Issa? Did you know that's what it was. Because Darrell Issa was the enemy at the time of this administration. [...] They came up with the name ISIS to be confused with Darrell Issa. I'm really being hinest with you. I remember the first time Christiane Amanpour sputtered out this word ISIS thinking did she get that one? [...] And then the President going it's not even ISIS, it's ISIL or IS. This Dr. Seuss. This is madness."
It's worth asking who we are actually supporting in that mess over there. Are we sure the weapons and supplies we're sending over aren't getting in the hands of terrorist groups? It's not like we don't have precedent.
Tank said...
Tell me how I'm supposed to know who to believe.
Tell me.
With Obama, no one can really be sure.
The US Military has intentionally been shrunken and the money saved spent for the expenses of an invading Army of refugees now being transported in and set up in strategic points across the land. The Pope likes it a lot.
Only a huge Global Warming Slush Fund will be funded from now on, unless Turble Trump gets himself elected.
Yes, because the US is pursuing a schizophrenic policy in Syria. We should be supporting and propping up Assad, not funding and supporting armed revolution against him. It is beyond idiotic.
ISIS is not THAT easy to defeat. But it's not that hard either. We are not facing the Nazi war machine. They are strong though because of our inaction. They are strong because Obama fundamentally misread them, because he is an anti war president and can't be bothered to look at ISIS head on, lest he have to do something like commit troops.
IRaq thinks we are helping them. Where did they get that idea? Well for one, the left said we trained them when we were trying to train Syrian resistance fighters. And the Insinuation is we did so intentionally. If Americans believe it, why shouldn't Iraqis.
But more importantly, if we aren't doing anything substiantial to help iraqi's, why should they assume we are involved in the fight in any way that is positive.Also, ISIS, as part of their rampage, actually took stockpiled American equipment. So they might assume, if they see ISIS in an American jeep for example, that Americans gave it to them.
If Obama wanted to change this perception, he'd need to get some boots on the ground and actively participate with Iraqi's letting them know, in no uncertain terms we are fighting with them against ISIS.
This president is not doing that. And so, he,s reaping what he sows.
Toward the end of the article it essentially says Iraqis can't believe the US Administration could fail to understand what is needed, they couldn't deliberately choose to do nothing in the face of the worsening crisis, they couldn't screw up this bad. Therefore they conclude the policies are deliberate and based on bad intentions.
I hear Americans voicing similar sentiments. People often say things things like,
"Obama is a Muslim! He's gotta be a Muslim. How else do you explain it?"
Or,
"Obama wants to bring America down. He wants to weaken our economy and our military. How else do you explain it?"
In the last paragraph a defender blames the mistrust of Obama on racism.
The Middle East ones on conspiracy theories
I meant the Middle East RUNS on conspiracy theories...I fat finger a lot, but a homophonic typo is interesting.
He says "his friend saw U.S. helicopters delivering bottled water to Islamic State positions." "It is not in doubt."
Sounds just like Robert Cook.
Realpolitik would be to let Iran and ISIS pound each other into dust, thus focusing their demonic energies upon each other instead of us.
But, we're probably not that clever.
Doesn't make a lot of sense. Don't they see US bombers dropping bombs on the bad guys?
I'm with Peter. It's like the Russians vs. the Germans. We need to enable ISIS to penetrate Iran and keep up the fighting among our enemies until they are all dead. The more Russia gets involved, the better.
"Doesn't make a lot of sense. Don't they see US bombers dropping bombs on the bad guys?"
They probably see us drop bombs on bad guys and good guys (and women and children) alike.
More proof that Islam rots out the mind of its followers.
Yes, because the US is pursuing a schizophrenic policy in Syria. We should be supporting and propping up Assad, not funding and supporting armed revolution against him. It is beyond idiotic.
Sadly, I cannot disagree. The alternative to him seems markedly worse. At this point, we should defend the dictators there against Islamists and help democratically aligned groups overthrow them (note hoe Obama was so gung-ho to help Islamists in Libya and Syria...not so much with democracy activists in Teheran). That area is a backwards shithole and until they decide to ditch Islam and join the current millennia, there isn't much that can be done.
...yes, I'm saying Islam is the key problem here. Israel managed to make it work in the least resource-area in that entire region.
Tank said...12/2/15, 7:20 AM
Tell me how I'm supposed to know who to believe.
Tell me.
Use common sense.
The United States can't be supporting ISIS, but according to the Iranian government, the United States (aka the Great Satan) can do no good.
Also the United States is against Assad, and Iranian propaganda is to pretend that all forces against Assad are really ISIS.
It's used very deliberately by Obama because "the Levant" includes what is now the state of Israel, which all true believers (like him) think should be part of the new Islamic caliphate.
It was ISIS that was claiming Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Itaq and Syria, before they decided to claim the world.
The word that Daesh used for around 3 months or so in 2014 was "al-Sham" That could be translated as "Greater Syria" but they chose the French term "the Levant."
(By the way, it's interesting that WaPo writes out "Islamic State" about 20 times in that article, and the acronym — ISIS or ISIL — doesn't appear at all.)
Other news outlets like the BBC and AP are also starting to use "Islamic State" a lot. Maybe to cut through the confusion caused by the use of ISIS, ISIL, and now Daesh, which I've noted is French Pres. Hollande's preference. And maybe also because Obama & co. refuse to use the words "radical Islamic terrorism".
The first comment is the correct one. Only Obama and Administration officials exclusively use "ISIL" vs. IS or ISIS. This is deliberate to keep the "Iraq" part of "ISIS" out of their preferred acronym.
It's used very deliberately by Obama because "the Levant" includes what is now the state of Israel, which all true believers (like him) think should be part of the new Islamic caliphate.
I have wondered about that myself. Deliberate, in the sense you mean? I'm not sure; but suggestive, at least.
Genius Savant: "Iraq" is in ISIL and ISIS. It's Syria that maybe Obama means to obfuscate.
Since ISIS or ISIL or the Islamic State is a self-declared nation, can every damn one of them be tried before military courts for violations of the rules of war, crimes against humanity, and mopery with intent? Then hung?
Just asking, because the Nuremberg Trials sure worked in Germany, and even those war crime trials in Japan had a positive impact.
Telling the world that chopping off heads of civilians is a hanging offense, and demonstrating it, is a salutary lesson many national leaders should learn.
About 1980 I spent a summer working with two Vietmanese brothers and their cousin who were all ARVN veterans of the post-American period of the Vietnam War. Even at that late date they believed firmly that the United States had possessed (and stored in Saigon) some sort of non-nuclear mega-bomb that would have stopped the 1975 NVA advance dead in it's tracks. They were baffled, and a little bitter, that the US had not used this wonder weapon to save South Vietnam. They were all combat veterans and the 19 year-old me couldn't even begin to think of a way to explain the American reality to them.
@Monkeyboy: Why not ISIW? If the name the "intelligence community" wishes to assign is aspirational, it should be clear that world domination is the goal of these people.
Post a Comment