Another country starts to fall into Daesh control... Of course, it's the one where USA armed "opposition"

[Ellestar]

This time it's Afghanistan. Hooray. USA and NATO created Daesh in just another country. That's a fourth one, after Iraq, Syria and Lybia. Not surprisingly, 100% of the countries with a major Daesh presense were invaded by USA and NATO, and/or USA and NATO financed and armed terrorists there (aka "moderate opposition").

http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151206/1031306065/Daesh-Militants-Seizure-Afghanistan.html

[Ellestar]

"Evil dictators" were overthrown by the West, and Daesh was put in charge. Aaaand Western population still buys it anyway, i mean, every brainwashed idiot still supports an idea to overthrow Assad. Like an examples in Lybia, Syria and Afghanistan weren't enough. Seriously, how can you possibly not realize that you're brainwashed idiots?

Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.

Ok, sorry, Western people are not idiots, they're just insane. That's why they still support their leaders.

[Dinner]

Ahh, Sputnik News. After Putin noticed his Russia Today outlet was a laughing stock for carrying nothing but conspiracy theorist cranks and overt pro-Kremlin propaganda he tried to just open a second outlet, called Sputnik News, doing the same thing and hope no one notices. I see now why you are always so confused and misinformed. Or are you now doing your job over at the troll factory trying to boost the Google rankings of Putin's garbage Propaganda sites?

Rational wiki got RT right and it has a nice section at the bottom explaining what trash Sputnik News is.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RT

[Ellestar]

See? You're just denying reality.

[Dinner]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/how-the-truth-is-made-at-russia-today#.hp46JMJn0

A great read with lots of testimony from former employees who quit because of the just absolute propaganda bull ****. Like being told to run stories claiming Germany was a failed state and about to collapse because Putin was mad at them for condemning his invasions of the Ukraine. Really, read the link and learn how Ellestar's favored sources really work.

[Ellestar]

Which sources tell you that Daesh doesn't exist in Lybia, Syria and Iraq? Which sources tell you that USA and allies didn't invade, didn't overthrow a government there and/or didn't finance and arm terrorists there?

[Ellestar]

And that's for you, my reality-denying insane friend: http://www.hngn.com/articles/133896/...-provinces.htm

Is United Nations Report that says about ISIS has presence in 25 Afghan provinces also happens to be Putin's propaganda bull****?

[giblets]

How is this any worse than Al Qaeda having a presence in Afghanistan? The US occupation of Afghanistan hasn't succeeded in getting rid of them either.

[kentonio]

"Evil dictators" were overthrown by the West, and Daesh was put in charge. Aaaand Western population still buys it anyway, i mean, every brainwashed idiot still supports an idea to overthrow Assad. Like an examples in Lybia, Syria and Afghanistan weren't enough. Seriously, how can you possibly not realize that you're brainwashed idiots?

A + B does not = C. They were evil dictators, AND the horrific mismanagement by the west after their overthrow led to the chaos now. Not everything is a clean choice between right and wrong and good and evil. I get very angry hearing people trying to whitewash the histories of people like Gaddafi and Hussain. Both were brutal dictators who commited acts of extreme atrocity against their own people and others. None of that however excuses the appalling post invasion strategies of the west, which now seem to have been focused on commercial gain rather than any sensible rebuilding policy and carried out with an almost complete lack of intelligence and common sense.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

There is a difference in learning from history (even recent history) and not.

It is pretty clear today that Iraq would have been better off under Saddam, than this post invasion chaos.
This is very, very clear in Libya. Yet the western governments and "well meaning" people want to do the same again in Syria.

Thankfully they did not want to do the same in Egypt, so another secular dictator was accepted to take control of that country. Some places in the world need a strong ruler, and have to be left to develop under him until they are ready for change to take place.

In Iraq we learned nothing, and that is not the government, as they know very well the consequences, and are oblivious of them, millions of dead are "OK" as long they do not travel across the sea and start living in their own constituencies.

It is the citizens who learn - nothing - and vote the same old, same old into office again and again.

[C0ckney]

exactly. disastrous failures in afghanistan, iraq and libya, and yet we're going back for more.

we go in, dropping bombs, ruin whole countries and societies and then are astonished when bombs start going off in european cities.

[kentonio]

There is a difference in learning from history (even recent history) and not.

It is pretty clear today that Iraq would have been better off under Saddam, than this post invasion chaos.

Sure, however they'd still be living under a brutal dictator and I think its very important to remember that. Far too many people are making it sound like Iraq used to be a wonderful land of candy and rainbows rather than the oppressive land of extra-judicial executions and rape centres that it actually was. The crime of the Iraq war wasn't the war itself, it was the abysmal post war ****-up that basically ensured the country would collapse into civil war.

[Aeson]

It is pretty clear today that Iraq would have been better off under Saddam, than this post invasion chaos.

That's not actually clear. It was bad under Saddam ... let's not forget he gassed his own people in an attempted genocide, started war with neighbours, had rape palaces, tortured and killed people who opposed him or were suspected of opposing him, and was willing to starve his own people rather than behave even up to the level of an "acceptable dictator" role internationally.

Saddam wasn't organic in any case. What Saddam would have done unopposed/unsupported by the West is not clear at all.

Some places in the world need a strong ruler, and have to be left to develop under him until they are ready for change to take place.

Using that reasoning there would be nothing by tyrants in the world. No people ever were ready to just spontaneously become free and peaceful. The influence of tyranny breeds radicalization and is diametrically opposed to keeping people from developing the social and political institutions necessary for a stable democracy. To this day even the most stable western democracies still have a long way to go.

That doesn't mean we should return to feudalism. Despots are always the first problem that needs to be solved.

[Dinner]

So, anyway, most of these groups which declare loyalty to ISIS aren't under the command of ISIS. What they are is local Islamic militants who want to become more famous and tie themselves to a brand name. The Atlantic Magazine did a great in depth report on this a while back and so did the BBC.

[Dinner]

If people are interested in reality then PBS's Frontline did an excellent long format piece of journalism on this very topic three weeks ago. Most of them are break away parts of the Taliban who lost out in a power struggle or got forced out by Pakistani Intelligence (who finances most Taliban activities), they are small in numbers but growing mainly due to the fact that ISIS pays them a salary of $700 a month which is a lot in Aghanistan. The money comedy from oil sales, looted antiquities, taxes on people, and from "charities" (front groups for terrorism) in the gulf especially from Saudi Arabia.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/isis-in-afghanistan/