Yazidis: Many Attacks Carried Out by Neighbors, Not ISIS

Jason Ditz, August 16, 2014

Somewhat lost in the first-hand account of last week’s helicopter crash by NY Times reporter Alissa Rubin, who was injured in the incident, was a potentially important revelation about the attacks on the Iraqi Yazidi minority.

The pilot really made a big impression. You know, the Yazidis feel so betrayed by the Arab neighbors they had lived among for so many years; they all turned on the Yazidis when ISIS came. Many of the atrocities were carried out not by the militants but by their own neighbors.

The focus in the story is on the pilot, himself a Sunni Arab from the region, trying to save his neighbor Yazidis even as others had turned on them. That’s important, without a doubt, but ignores the more important point, that ISIS didn’t actually carry out many of the attacks on the Yazidis.

So to sum up, President Obama started a war to save 40,000 trapped Yazidis from ISIS, and there weren’t 40,000 of them, and they weren’t trapped, and now it turns out ISIS also wasn’t nearly so involved as previously indicated. America was lied into the first Iraq War in 2003 on some mightly flimsy pretexts, but it seems the administration didn’t learn any of the lessons, even bad lessons like keeping your lies less transparent, and the whole pretext collapsed in just over a week. The war, however, will go on much, much longer.




23 Responses to “Yazidis: Many Attacks Carried Out by Neighbors, Not ISIS”

  1. Stunning. Does this mean Saddam's rule was preventing everyone to kill each other or do we see tensions here which only accumulated after 2003? In any case, it seems related to the 2003 war which Obama in name rejects but in essence blesses and even tries to restart, as to finish what is left: the "Afghanistan-generating-machine" or "desertification" of the Middle East (and why would it stop there?)

  2. "… but it seems the administration didn’t learn any of the lessons, …"

    On the contrary, I would submit that they did learn the lessons and applied them with masterful aplomb.

    On other matters, I do not for one second accept the argument that US re-involvement is all about hydrocarbons (per-sec), but I have essentially no hesitation entertaining a far more compelling and likely argument that the US is desperate to foster arms sales to prop their overwhelmingly defense spending dominated war-economy stocks and high tech industrial production capacity.

    They have recent form:

    Conflicts of interest in the Syria debate -An analysis of the defense industry ties of experts and think tanks who commented on military intervention – October 11, 2013

    /…
    * 22 commentators. The report identifies 22 commentators who weighed in during the Syria debate in large media outlets, and who have current industry ties that may pose conflicts of interest. The commentators are linked to large defense and intelligence contractors like Raytheon, smaller defense and intelligence contractors like TASC, defense-focused investment firms like SCP Partners, and commercial diplomacy firms like the Cohen Group.

    * 111 appearances, 13 attempts at disclosure. These commentators made 111 appearances – as op-ed authors, quoted experts, or news show guests – in major media outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Bloomberg, and the Washington Post. Despite the commentators’ apparent financial and professional stakes in military action, major media outlets typically failed to disclose these relationships, noting them, often incompletely, in only 13 of the 111 appearances (see table below for media outlet breakdown).
    …/
    http://public-accountability.org/2013/10/conflict

    and;

    At Least 22 Defense Industry Stakeholders Used as ‘Pundits’ by US Media to Sell Syria War – October 12, 2013 http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/10/12/at-least-22

    So ISIL is just what the doctor ordered, the boogie-man we had to have, even. But just what were the early roots of this Islamic Jihadi radicalism? Who actually kicked it off, funded it, armed it and trained it, and fanned the flames through multiple conflicts?

    Genesis Of Islamic Radicalism: The US Textbook Project That Taught Afghan Children Terror
    Published On: Mon, Dec 24th, 2012 http://newsrescue.com/genesis-of-islamic-radicali

    And who armed and trained and financed the FSA who then combined with imported extremists to form ISIL?

    So I have not much reason to resist the observation that hydrocarbons are a bit-player off to one side of a colossal arms bazaar. The oil's function is for trade financing of the arms and the crushing war debts to come.

    And I'm not even being a bit cynical here, only accurate.

  3. I think that the authorities have learned a big lesson – namely, that the Americans have become "the masses" that will accept tyranny, corruption, and low behavior from the elites. When we didn't hang Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al after their lies about Iraq, when we didn't let the Jamie Dimons of Wall Street go broke in 2007, and when we elect mental midgets like Louis Gohmert, what else can the wiseguys figure than, "we got these rubes by the shorts"?

  4. Jason Putz seems to have morphed into an apologist for the headchoppers. The enemy of your enemy might not be your friend. Just sayin..

  5. Incubator babies redux.

    The US needed an excuse — a justification — to reenter, and the Yazidis just barely fit the bill, filled out by a few carefully crafted lies — exaggerated beheadings and the obligatory gang rapes — and then promoted by an Hasbara bump. It was the last that tipped me off: a Kurdish J*w posting from Israel about how his home village was destroyed and the people killed. Then the light went off.

    The original goal of the Neocons/Pentagon/MIC was to conquer Iraq, install a puppet, get preferential sweetheart access to Iraqi oil for Chevron and Exxon-Mobil, get rebuilding contracts for US construction firms (Bechtel. Halliburton, etc.), install US air bases with which to dominate the region, sell trainloads of US-manufactured military equipment to the Iraqis paid for by whatever oil money was left after the oil companies ripped off "their share".

    Well, that went south when the Iraqis and Maliki told Bush (and then Obama) to get the f**k out. But all through the war and even back to the end of Gulf War 1 and the no-fly zone, the Kurds were flat out in love with both the US and Israel. So when ISIS arrived and Iraq disintegrated, the US jumped to implement plan B, the same as plan A but with the Kurds as the victi….. er, sponsors.

    The Yazidi massacre provided the pretext, and the Empire is off and running, once again.

    Good luck.

  6. […] Jason Ditz reportsĀ for Antiwar: […]

  7. Ostrich! OrZionazi?

  8. This sounds appalling. Does it mean that many Sunnis have a dormant bigotry which shows up as soon the conditions are favorable?

  9. The Arabs have an old saying, "Don't let the Camel get it's nose inside the tent flap". The Americans have a phrase,"The edge of the wedge".

  10. Im not quite sure I believe in Rubins story of Arabs hating Kurds. I've heard rumours about US/Israel actively working to split the Kurds from Iraq.

  11. A friend of mine belongs to the Yazidi community and told me some stories of her relatives in Iraq. It really seems like as if many groups use the opportunity now to attack them / take things away from them. I still believe that it is very important to help these people, lets hope the US & the EU will do the right thing here..

  12. […] Yazidis: Many Attacks Carried Out by Neighbors, Not ISIS […]

  13. A new low for anti-war, acting as apologists for ISIS.
    Don't want to offend your Islamic masters, eh kuffar?

  14. Exactly right.

  15. I am totally against with these types of attack and I will ever support these types of attacks that become the possibility of innocent person's death. Organizations and Government should think about it and try online assignment help to overcome if they want to protect their nation.

  16. Antiwar will do anything to make the US look bad, perhaps they would even praise the devil. I wish they would be more objective.

  17. Just because Antiwar doesn't fit your definition of objective doesn't mean they're not. They're just not for your taste. Personally, Antiwar is far more objective than anything written or said in the US.

  18. what ever is this shit but it is a huge loss to mankind. The common people die for no reason. what is there fault in this war. They just ends up being at wrong place.

  19. Your name says it all.

  20. I was particularly amused when the only references to the Yazidis I would see in the media labeled them as 'Christian Yazidis' across the board. To me that was a blatant attempt to gain sympathy in the Bible Belt- "We can't let those Mooslims kill CHRISTIANS!!"- but in the end, as more was published about the Yazidis and the eclectic makeup of their ancient religion, that narrative had to be jettisoned and a new story cooked up. Again, another group of people used as the excuse- not the reason- to go to war. (I seem to remember a little dust-up in Rwanda back in the day where thousands were going at each other with machetes and we did nothing to intervene- I guess they didn't have any political benefit or any natural resources we wanted?)

  21. If ISIS was responsible, it would be said here- and just quickly if they were not, that would be said as well. As it happens, this time ISIS is not the focus of the story- although the part they did play was noted- but rather the non-ISIS players who vented their anger/revenge/meanness on the Yazidis when they had a golden opportunity to do so- and they almost got away with it.

    I can be your worst enemy, but if if you're accused of something you didn't do I'll still defend you- or at the very least not bear false witness against you.

    In closing, how did you determine the commentators here are of the kuffar? It would not surprise me if few here are Muslims- your post indicates you are, however- but without evidence aren't you committing a sin by declaring them to be kuffar? Better look to the Qur'an- bearing false witness isn't something to be taken lightly.

  22. There is an exchange in the play "A Man for All Seasons" that seems appropriate here:
    —-

    William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

    Sir Thomas Moore: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

    William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

    Sir Thomas Moore: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

    As you should gather from many of the comments that appear on this site, we don't strive for the 'politically correct' approach of being yes-men for everything that is shoved at us. We don't even have to go out of our way to find things our government is doing without the consent of the public and contrary to the Constitution- we simply bring those things to light to keep ourselves, and other like-minded citizens, informed of the news you don't often get to see. If we agree with a certain piece, of course our comments will concur- that's just the nature of the beast. As we have seen today, many do not agree with a particular article and many of us have been just as quick to lay out our own arguments against it.

  23. why there is always something new that make much effort to disturb peace? can we just holding hand togethere please?