A Question of Intent: "US Helicopter Carrying Weapons To ISIS Shot Down By Iraq's 'Popular Forces'"

Concerning: "US Helicopter Carrying Weapons To ISIS Shot Down By Iraq's 'Popular Forces'":

The Iraqi Army have again claimed that they have downed aircraft from the US led coalition that was providing military assistance to ISIS.

According to a report by the Iranian Fars News Agency (see below) a US helicopter carrying arms to ISIS was shot down on Thursday.

A few days earlier on Monday it was also reported that the Iraqi army had downed two British planes delivering weapons to ISIS.

03041501I would say there are historical grounds for being suspicious, but there's no smoking-gun evidence in that article.

What I would like to see is the percentage of total airdrops that have been dropped in IS controlled territory. If it is extremely low, then that would lend credence to the US claim that those very few drops were errors.

If the US were to want the war against IS to drag out very long, the percentage of drops falling into IS hands would have to be probably 30%, depending upon IS's other sources of weapons. In addition, besides just airdrops, one would have to factor in non-airdropped aid to Iraq and the Kurds, such as by cargo planes and ships that land and dock.

It is not farfetched to think that the US, knowing that it did the vast majority of the fighting in Iraq (rightly or wrongly) before, doesn't want to repeat that error. The US trained and heavily equipped the Shiites in Iraq only to see them drop and abandon their advanced weapons and equipment at the first sign of a very tiny (in relative terms) ISIS group roll right at them in non-armored vehicles. Why didn't those Shiites stand and fight the ISIS when it was no more than 5-7 thousand? The Shiites hugely outnumbered those Sunnis and had all the weapons and ammunition and equipment to defeat ISIS right then and there, and more weapons and ammo, etc., would have been forthcoming from the US had those Shiites have done that.

So, to have the Shiites of Iran making the claims they have in the linked article is telling half-truths at best. Propaganda spin works on both sides, comes from both sides.

The Iranians want the US to simply unleash whatever it would take for the US to completely wipe out IS in a month, but that wouldn't create the situation where Shiites defend themselves but rather rely upon the US taxpayers to defend them.

I'm not saying I support US actions in the Middle East. I don't. I know that the US foreign policy toward the region has been stupid even in secular terms and going back nearly to the very first time the US engaged the area.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.