Meanwhile, in Iraq, the Iranians are winning the propaganda war and have the Iraqis actually believing that the USA is supplying ISIS with weapons and other supplies.

That's right. Iraqis actually think we support ISIS.

We probably are. :rolleyes:

There have been multiple reports of bungled US airdrops of weapons and supplies falling into the hands of ISIS who got to them before the intended recipients could recover them.

That's happened way to often to be isolated incidents. One of the problems when the good guys and bad guys don't reliably hold specific territory, and you can't tell who's who from the air. ISIS might have ended up with part of the $2.5 Billion in US $100 bills that went missing in Iraq. :mad:

They're probably using those bills as toilet paper after all those MREs we've airdropped to them.

There have been some really fascinating articles lately about ISIS (or ISIL or Daesh or whatever the fuck we're calling them now). The stuff that's been snuck out of Syria and Iraq by some very brave individuals showing the statebuilding plans and long-term strategies of the new 'kaliphate' has been a real eyeopener. We think of them (or I certainly did) more like the kind of unstable warlords that often spring up in places where there's a civil war or an authority vacuum - but they are much more than that and the west really has to be careful not underestimate them.

And then there's this, whih I found really interesting. It's looking at this within a larger historical framework.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...slam-narrative

That is an interesting perspective on this. We can't break those old stereotypes about each other without some kind of intercourse between the people of both civilizations but Trump and ISIS/Daesh have the same goal, stop the non-military contacts from taking place. The goal of each is a permanent state of war and they're both being successful. The other candidates don't appear interested in changing that dynamic much though.

Too tough to put that dynamic on a bumper sticker... or your hat.
It's not even history repeating itself, it's uninterrupted continuation.
That long article I linked in post #101 shows the rules and methodology of isis/isil.

Daesh is best, because it's a derogitory term for them that the local people made up.

I suppose at this point pissing them off doesn't make any difference. :haha:

Is it? I didn't know that. Thanks!

I read an article about "Daesh" and while I don't completely understand the linguistics of it, it implies that they lack any legitimacy. That they are frauds. It somehow is a label that actually fits their group and yet says they are frauds at the same time. It's perfect because it identifies them and renounces their authority at the same time.

I misrememebred slightly.
"Daesh: This is a term the militant group hates. French President François Hollande has used it since the attacks Friday, and first used it in September 2014. It’s an Arabic acronym for “al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham.” It can sometimes be spelled DAIISH, Da'esh or Daech, a popular French version. The hacktivist group Anonymous and President Barack Obama have used the term since the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris.

Thanks to Arabic wordplay, it could also be an insult. “Depending on how it is conjugated in Arabic, it can mean anything from ‘to trample down and crush’ to ‘a bigot who imposes his view on others,'" Boston Globe writer Zeba Khan reported in October 2014. ISIS threatened “to cut the tongue of anyone who publicly used the acronym Daesh, instead of referring to the group by its full name,” the Associated Press wrote in September 2014."
http://www.ibtimes.com/isil-isis-isl...erence-2187131

♫Daeshing through the sand
In a clapped out old pickup
Shooting everything in sight
With a plan that is fucked up.
Ha Ha Ha Ha
♫Jingle shells, Daesh smells
Death is on the way
Oh what fun, to kill a nun
If the caliph has his way

Hehehehehehe. I like that.