So would you care to suggest that ISIS is supporting the New World Order ?

Of course they are.
In case you haven't noticed, in the war to remove Assad from power US and ISIS are on the same side.

You need to ask yourself the question that if IS was running convoys of oil trucks out of Syria WHY DID THE US NOT BOMB THEM over the last 14months?

So, no I most certainly do not support ISIS, and no its not that complicated at all.
Yes I do support Assad, he is the democratically elected leader of that country, and he has the right to defend it against foreign enemies that wish to destroy it.

Hi AC,

I suppose I should go slow. Children can be so temperamental.

You suggest that " in the war to remove Assad from power US and ISIS are on the same side."

No, sweet boy, they both - in their different ways - are deadly enemies of Assad. But no, they are also deadly enemies to each other.

I know that's hard to get you head around: you think that the world is, and should be only, binary - that means 'can be divided into two', like them and us; but gosh, out there, sometimes, there are three sides, or even more, each side bitterly opposing ALL of the other sides.

Let's look at just a few of these 'sides':

* ISIS is bitterly opposed by Assad, the Russians (wait and see: eventually), the Western coalition, al Nusra and al Qa'ida, the various Kurdish forces, the Yazidis, Iran, many 'rebel' forces, and so on;

* amongst that lot, almost none are fully co-operating with each other, and most are at war with every other group: can you see that ?

Why is that ? Well, that part of the Middle East is near the cross-roads of Sunni and Shi'ite (not to mention sects within each one); Arab, Kurd, Turk, Azeri, Armenian, and Iranian; Christian, Yazidi, Zoroastrian, Druse, etc; secular: even left-wing (who must be the bravest people in the entire ME), as well as conservative; very rural, desert-tribal, towns and cities. The divisions within the reactionary Islamists, al Nusra versus ISIS, complicates the picture.

Mathematically, there would be enough scope there for hundreds of possible temporary alliances between different groups.

But keep playing with your blocks, AC: either-or, only this side and that side, therefore US and ISIS must be working together because both are anti-Assad. All so simple :)

Joe

For all your criticisms I haven't seen you provide an explanation as to why, if the US has been bombing IS in Syria for the last 14mths, could they not find the 3000 oil tankers taking stolen Syrian oil into Turkey which is funding their war.

Until you answer that question its fairly obvious to me that the US was only PRETENDING to fight IS while destroying Syrian infrastructure.

And since you wish you call me a child and put me down, whilst never stating your own position then its only fair for me to return in kind and say that you are just another 'useful idiot' that watches too much corporate news and probably cant think for yourself.

Sorry but that's the way I see it.

Until you can come up with a reasonable explanation for the above question then your whole argument basically goes down the toilet.

AC,

No, I don't have a conclusive answer to your question: the US has been pretty desultory in its bombing, I'll agree, and the two main reasons for that could be: (1) that they are more obsessed with getting rid of Assad than tackling ISIS, partly because of (2) they don't want to put the Turks off-side too much.

Everybody, everybody, everybody, in the anti-fascist forces (i.e. anti-ISIS) has to play all sorts of double-games, multiple-games, in order to either support their favoured side' OR in order to attack their most-hated enemies. In such a multiple-sided arena, it's a bit like a wrestling tag-team match with fifty tag-teams at once, all against each other ultimately. So who do you work with for now, who do you try to crush now, or leave until later ?

Syria-Iraq being on so many political, ethnic, historical, religious and geographical fault-lines (a bit like Serbia-Bosnia-Croatia in Europe, but much more so), there are bound to be all sorts of wheeling and dealing going on - quite apart from the US goal of keeping Iran and the Saudis apart, with their likely access to nuclear weapons.

So the Yanks have to keep the Turks happy, to wink at all the top-level corruption, and even overlook their dealings with ISIS. In a sense, the Yanks don't have a designated dog in this fight, and yet of course, ultimately, of course they're in it up to their eyeballs, as we all are.

I wonder if there has ever been a more complicated political and military situation in world history, Any suggestions ?

Cheers,

Joe

The puzzle about the ISIS oil may be tied up with who owns the oil.
It may be that the funds from the sale of the oil was being diverted
or traced to see who it ultimately was receiving it.
I notice that the road oil tankers are now being attacked.
They would be an easy target I imagine.
Previously the oil was being pumped across the Turkish border in plastic irrigation pipes.
However as ISIS lost territory they had to revert to road tankers.
It will not be as simple as A C would think.

I notice that Saudi Arabia will not be reducing its production so the
low prices will probably continue for a while yet.
This will put another turn on the financial screw that is affecting
the oil producing countries.
Maybe the Saudis will not be financing so many mosques around the world.

I wont argue with you there are a whole lot of different factions on the ground all with different alliances to different groups.
The whole thing really is a complete mess.

I guess they thought they could get rid of Assad as quickly as they got rid of Ghadaffi, but it didn't work out that way.

The situation is made worse by the fact that US allies are Turkey and Saudi Arabia, who both also oppose Assad, and I'll agree with you there that it does become complicated, especially with the US trying to get a leg in and support the Kurds.

IMO Saudi Arabia and Turkey NEED to be knocked down a peg.

Don't forget that the US first used Sunni fighters (Wahhabism) under the Brezinski plan with the Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviet Union in 1979.

Ultimately I think it should be pretty evident that these covert regime changes don't help the countries in question at all, but the military contractors do pretty well.

It would of been better if they never went in there stirring up trouble in the first place.

Have you actually seen what they have done to Syria, just to get rid of one guy?