this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
45 points (100.0% liked)

Comradeship // Freechat

2190 readers
120 users here now

Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.

A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

With the Mujahideen (Taliban and al-Qaeda), it was obvious: attack the Soviets.

But why ISIS? When they overthrew Saddam, why would they fund a group that would attack their own puppet government?

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 35 points 7 months ago

As I understand it ISIS isn't actually a single militant group, it's a collection of independent militant groups that all call themselves ISIS.

So the US doesn't need to fund every ISIS cell, in fact some of them it might legitimately fight, it just funds the ones that attack enemies.

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 30 points 7 months ago

To fight Assad.

[–] big_spoon@lemmygrad.ml 26 points 7 months ago

i mean, a middle east in peace would be bad for the oily aspirations of usa...a dozen of little terrorist groups with a islamic fundamentalist framework are another tool for desestabilizing the region and invading everywhere blaming "islamic terrorism" as the origin of the "need of intervention to restore democratic ideals"

[–] darkcalling@lemmygrad.ml 21 points 7 months ago (1 children)

In The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a key figure in shaping US policy thinking last century and this no doubt, it's mentioned that there is region, a triangle of critical control in the middle east that can prevent the uniting of Asia, Africa, and Europe. It is the cross-roads of all these three and although I'm not sure he mentions destabilization, he does mention control and one way to control a region or at least deny its usefulness to others is to destabilize it with terrorism and extremism. To that end the US wants to prevent China and Russia from having good healthy relationships and trade with Africa and Europe because that's land-power that locks the US, far across the oceans, entirely out. That's a potential that would destroy any hopes for US hegemony.

[–] halykthered@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 7 months ago

Made me think of the BRI. At most, it seems like a stall tactic for the US to back extremists. The pendulum is already swinging back against the west. Ground is being lost in the Middle-East and Africa. VEO's csn certainly stir the pot and muddy the waters, but for how long?

[–] MasterDeeLuke@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 7 months ago

Assad, disrupt China from economically developing the region in and pulling it closer towards BRICS, and hopefully have ISIS bleed into Iran. It's also worth noting that the US wasn't very successful in establishing a loyal puppet government in Iraq, most Iraqis still hate the US.

[–] SadArtemis@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 7 months ago

Why is it so surprising? The US govt. is a rabid dog, and everything it spawns is equally rabid in turn. NATO, far right movements all across Europe, Ukronazis, jihadis, Zionists, Falun Gong, countless tribalist militias, cartels, and right wing death squads, etc...

The US is an empire of chaos, and that chaos even includes within the imperial core itself, where its population is pitted against each other with culture wars and systemic racism and divide-and-conquer tactics, while their own government wages what can only be called an opium war upon its own citizenry.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

same reason they funded mujihadeen

[–] K1nsey6@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 7 months ago

Fucking liberals give Carter a pass for that one