Welcome to the Net Muslims Forums.
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 71
  1. #21
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    ISIL engaged in trafficking Iraqi, Syrian kids to Israel: Report

    A report says the ISIL Takfiri militants operating in Syria and Iraq are engaged in trafficking Iraqi and Syrian children into Israel via Turkey.

    The Tunis-based al-Chourouk newspaper said the Takfiri terrorists send children from Izadi Kurd, Christian and Kurdish families into Turkey and then transport them into Tel Aviv.

    The report added that criminal Israeli gangs transfer the children to settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories to increase the population of settlers.

    There have been reports that Israel is training the ISIL Takfiri terrorists against the government forces in Syria and Iraq.

    The Swedish newspaper Sydsvenskan has recently quoted Adrian Kaba, who represents the Social Democratic Party of Sweden on the Malmö City Council and the regional government, as saying that Israel is providing ISIL with military training.

    The Takfiri militants have seized large swathes of land in Iraq and Syria. They have carried out horrific acts of violence in the two countries, including public decapitations. ISIL has also killed people from Shia, Sunni, Kurd, Christian and Izadi Kurd communities in Iraq.


  2. #22
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    CIA Admitted to Staging Fake Jihadist Videos in 2010 – Questions arise after experts say Foley ISIS beheading video likely “staged”

    September 5, 2014

    A 2010 Washington Post article authored by former Army Intelligence Officer Jeff Stein features a detailed account of how the CIA admittedly filmed a fake Bin Laden video during the run up to the 2003 Iraq war.

    The article, which includes comments from multiple sources within the CIA’s Iraq Operations Group, explains how the agency had planned to “flood Iraq with the videos” depicting several controversial scenarios.

    “The agency actually did make a video purporting to show Osama bin Laden and his cronies sitting around a campfire swigging bottles of liquor and savoring their conquests with boys, one of the former CIA officers recalled, chuckling at the memory,” the article states. “The actors were drawn from ‘some of us darker-skinned employees.’”

    Other CIA officials admitted to planning several fake videos featuring former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, one of which would depict the leader engaged in sexual acts with a teenage boy.

    “It would look like it was taken by a hidden camera,” said one of the former officials. “Very grainy, like it was a secret videotaping of a sex session.”

    According to one official, the video ideas were eventually scrapped due to the CIA officers, who spent their careers in Latin America and East Asia, not understanding “the cultural nuances of the region.”

    “Saddam playing with boys would have no resonance in the Middle East — nobody cares,” a third former CIA official said.

    “Trying to mount such a campaign would show a total misunderstanding of the target. We always mistake our own taboos as universal when, in fact, they are just our taboos.”

    The article does however admit that one specific psyop was successfully implemented, linking to a document from the Rand Corporation that explains the program.

    “According to histories of the 2003 invasion, the single most effective ‘information warfare’ project, which originated in the Pentagon, was to send faxes and e-mails to Iraqi unit commanders as the fighting began, telling them their situation was hopeless, to round up their tanks, artillery and men, and go home,” the article states. “Many did.”

    While the aforementioned videos were never released, the much looked over admission of such psychological operations raises questions in light of the recent ISIS beheading videos.

    Only days after Infowars’ questioned several discrepancies in the James Foley beheading video, top British forensic experts concluded that the video was likely staged using “camera trickery and slick post-production techniques.”

    “After enhancements, the knife can be seen to be drawn across the upper neck at least six times, with no blood evidence to the point the picture fades to black,” an analyst said.”I think it has been staged. My feeling is that the execution may have happened after the camera was stopped.”

    Given the brutality seen in many of ISIS’ grainy, low quality cell phone videos from Iraq and Syria, many have also begun questioning why the “beheading” video’s hide the actual beheading while also exhibiting more advanced editing techniques and high definition cameras.

    While no one questions the tragic fate of both James Foley and Steven Sotloff, other questions have been raised in light of who discovered the most recent video: the SITE Intelligence Group (Search for International Terrorist Entities).

    “One of SITE’s founders, Rita Katz, is a government insider with close connections to former terrorism czar Richard Clarke and his staff in the White House, as well as investigators in the Department of Justice, Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Homeland Security according to SourceWatch,” notes Infowars’ Kurt Nimmo.

    The most glaring issue still remains the United States government’s involvement in creating ISIS, recently pointed out by General Thomas McInerney.

    “We backed I believe in some cases, some of the wrong people and not in the right part of the Free Syrian Army and that’s a little confusing to people, so I’ve always maintained….that we were backing the wrong types,” McInerney said.

    While the Obama Administration admits to having no strategy against ISIS, internal sources claim the President has received intelligence on their rise for more than a year. Even as reports come in on possible ISIS attacks in the Southern US, the President still refuses to secure the border as border gates are left wide open.


    Beware The Green Screen Deception

    Naomi Wolf reacts to Isis 'conspiracy theories' critism after she questions whether beheading videos are real

    Naomi Wolf stirred controversy over the weekend, after she posted a series of comments on Facebook, in which she questioned the authenticity of the Isis beheading videos and suggested that they "had been staged by the US government".

    She went on to query whether Isis (also known as the Islamic State) "victims and their parents were actors", while in a separate, deleted post, she asked a New York Times journalist to verify that the murder of Americans and two Britons had actually happened, political commentary site Vox.com reported.

    Furthermore, the best-selling author, who has worked as the former advisor to Al Gore and Bill Clinton in the past, mused that sending American soldiers to west Africa to help stop the spread of Ebola was all a ruse to justify a military takeover of the region.

    She wrote: "The US benefits from … us being SO **** SCARED so that our intelligence agencies can take away the last of our freedoms on behalf of corporate interests the way intelligence agencies in the West are doing all over ... Britain, Canada, Australia, next NZ ... so there you are."

    Her posts were predictably met with some criticism online.

    Vox.com journalist Max Fisher branded her ideas "wild-eyed conspiracy theories" that could be harmful to an impressionable audience given her "record of respectability".

    "It is important for readers who may encounter Wolf's ideas to understand the distinction between her earlier work, which rose on its merits, and her newer conspiracy theories, which are unhinged, damaging and dangerous," he wrote.

    "For the record … sigh … internetland, I am not 'calling into question the authenticity of the ISIS videos',"Wolf responded, again on Facebook.

    "I don't KNOW if they are authentic or not - no one can - because no one that I am aware of has found a second source for them. I am not making ANY assertions or drawing ANY conclusions.

    "I am just … engaging in journalism which requires two independent sources before you can post or publish something as true. I wonder why this bears so much repeating … it used to be something all journalists abided by.”

    In a separate, longer post, Wolf further challenged her branding as a conspiracy theorist.

    "I see some blogs are badly distorting the nature of what I said ... Why do I often not take political narratives at face value as they are dictated to the press?

    "A) Because I am a journalist and verifying skeptically is supposed be our job but more importantly b) because I worked for two Presidential campaigns, one formally and one informally, as a political consultant, and because I was a spouse of a White House speechwriter for many years.

    "As a political consultant and also a longtime close-up observer of how news and statements come out of the White House and Presidential campaigns, I know that FIRST the communications team involved has to start with something handed to them that they had nothing to do with ...

    "And THEN the creative, talented people in the campaigns' or nation's communications shop are asked to construct a narrative about it and talking points and find 'heroes' that help the narrative along, and the narrative often finally sounds like nothing to do with the actual deal. (In fact best that way.)

    "And that uplifting campaign speech or press conference or initiative or photo op often involves finding individuals with great stories to tell that have nothing to do with the deal.

    "So all the people who are attacking me right now for 'conspiracy theories' have no idea what they are talking about ... people who assume the dominant narrative MUST BE TRUE and the dominant reasons MUST BE REAL are not experienced in how that world works."

    This isn’t the first time Wolf has come under scrutiny for her "creative interpretation of events".

    Most memorably, New York Magazine commissioned an article in which they alleged that Wolf was convinced that Edward Snowden and his girlfriend were government plants because the National Security Agency whistleblower was "too well-spoken".


    Naomi Wolf: 'Where are they getting all these folks from?'

    Author condemned for suggesting ISIS hostages are ACTORS and be-headings aren't real

    • Writer, 51, posted a number of Facebook messages questioning footage
    • Asked if there was any record of the hostages being abducted initially
    • Claimed it would need at least five people to 'stage an event like this'
    • Also suggested Obama's deployment of troops in Africa to fight Ebola was a ploy for them to return infected by the deadly virus

    Author Naomi Wolf has been accused of being 'disrespectful' after suggesting footage of hostages being beheaded by ISIS militants isn't real.

    The 51-year-old American writer made a series of controversial statements questioning the authenticity of the footage in a number of messages on her Facebook page.

    The initial post in which the feminist activist questions where the terror group are 'getting all these folks from' was deleted.

    In another post, she also said that the Obama administration was sending troops to West Africa to confront the Ebola outbreak so they could return with the deadly infection - justifying a military takeover of Africa.

    Social media users quickly rounded on her with some suggesting her theories were 'crazy' while others said her views were 'harmful' and had disrespected the victims' families.

    A video released on Friday appeared to show British hostage Alan Henning being beheaded by Jihadi John.

    He is the fourth person to have been murdered at the hands of the ISIS, and a fifth, former Army ranger Peter Kaggis, has been threatened as the next victim.

    After making the controversial statements over the weekend, Wolf defended her actions saying she was criticizing the reporting of the story - suggesting the video had not been properly confirmed by two sources.

    The post, that was later taken down, said: 'OK two of the hostages just happened to go from long careers into the military to... sudden humanitarian work (same was true of the latest British hostage). Where are they getting all these folks from?

    'If someone is abducted there is a record with Amnesty and with Reporters without Borders. Can someone please confirm that these organizations have any record of this person having been abducted?

    'The NYT (New York Times) yesterday ran a depressingly sloppy editorial claiming that all the ISIS beheading videos must be real because 'there are so many of them on youtube'.

    'THAT's journalism? They also called ISIS 'evil' many times - which is not language of a news analysis, it is a theological category for some faiths and a Global War on Terror talking point... this may all be true but it takes five people to stage an event like this - two to be 'parents' - two to pose for the cameras... one in a ninja outfit... and one to contact the media that does not bother checking who ANY of these four other people are...'

    During the social media backlash, Mark Boothroyd said: 'Don't insult these people who have given their lives for humanitarian work.

    'The activities of all these people have been well documented over the years. They are known people with families and friends who have supported them. Stop spreading conspiracy theories.'

    And Matt Hill added: 'A minimal amount of research would show you you're wrong – there's plenty of information out there about the hostages.'

    After noticing some of the responses, she took to her Facebook page again and wrote: 'I stand by what I wrote today: the videos of beheadings need to be independently confirmed before they are part of the historical record. They may well be completely accurate but there are not yet independent confirmations that they are accurate.'

    Another post said: 'A commentator below self-identified as being the New York Times reporter covering the hostage crisis. This reporter asked me to take my post about asking for confirmation of the hostage story down, as this reporter said that keeping it up is "irresponsible" and not respectful to the pain of the families involved.

    'Once again to clarify. The reason I ask that media check and confirm a story like the series of videotaped beheadings of aid workers and journalists is that that is what journalists are supposed to do. It is sad and baffling to me that my post below reminding journalists to get two sources confirming information before they run stories repeating government talking points, is being interpreted as "a conspiracy theory".'

    She also condemned President Obama's decision to send troops to Western Africa to help combat the Ebola outbreak, suggesting the military will bring it back to the United States.

    She said: 'And...TV news in US reporting Department of Defense is sending three thousand troops to Liberia.. troops with no medical expertise.. to construct and run field hospitals for Ebola....then they will be quarantined for 21 days...and eventually come home.

  3. #23
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warns America faces a '30-year war' against ISIS and other emerging terror groups

    • Threats posed by emerging terrorist groups in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and other countries will keep the U.S. military engaged
    • Panetta is making the rounds to promote his new book, Worthy Fights: A Memoir of Leadership in War and Peace, which comes out on Tuesday
    • In his memoir Panetta offers a critical take on President Obama's policies toward Iraq and Syria
    • His criticism of the Commander in Chief comes as allies of the president on Capitol Hill have begun to call his foreign policies into question, as well

    6 October 2014

    Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said in an interview released Monday morning that Americans should prepare themselves for the country to be at war with the Islamic State and other terrorist groups for decades to come.

    'I think we're looking at kind of a 30-year war,' he told USA Today in an interview to promote his new book, Worthy Fights: A Memoir of Leadership in War and Peace, which comes out on Tuesday.

    Threats posed by emerging terrorist networks in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and other countries will keep the U.S. military engaged for the foreseeable future, he forewarned. The fight will not end when the U.S. defeats ISIS in Iraq and Syria, the former Pentagon official said.

    In his upcoming memoir Panetta, who also served as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, rehashes the foreign policy decisions made President Barack Obama during his four-year tenor in his administration, including Obama's judgement call not to leave troops in Iraq after the conclusion of the U.S. occupation of the country.

    That 'created a vacuum in terms of the ability of that country to better protect itself, and it's out of that vacuum that ISIS began to breed,' Panetta told USA Today.

    Obama's decision not to confront Syrian President Bashar al-Assad with military force after previously warning that he would face consequences if he crossed a 'red line' by using chemical weapons on his citizens was also a mistake, Panetta said.

    The former Obama administration official told USA Today the backtrack harmed Obama's credibility internationally. Standing up to Islamic extremists now could give Obama a chance to 'repair the damage,' Panetta said, after having 'lost his way.'

    Panetta's criticism of the Commander in Chief comes as allies of the president on Capitol Hill have begun to call his handling of the situations in Iraq and Syria, as well other terrorist hot spots, into question, as well.

    On Sunday Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, a Democrat eyeing a 2016 presidential run, argued that no president, including Obama, has 'had a clear articulation of what American foreign policy is basically since the end of the Cold War.

    'Looking at places like Iraq and Syria, you’re seeing policies that can’t be clearly articulated,' Webb said on NBC's Meet the Press.

    'It’s not just about ISIS,' Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey said Sunday during an interview on New York radio station 970 AM.

    'This is a global jihad with many locations ... Nigeria, Somalia and elsewhere where organizations have sworn themselves to kill as many Muslims, Christians and Jews as they can to establish their religious order,' the Democratic senator said, according to The Hill.

    Kerrey argued that the United States 'underestimated the threat of a global jihad.'

    'ISIS is just a part of it,' he said. 'This is a global jihad that comes out of the Muslim religion. Our intelligence underestimated the threat, and the president did as well.'

    Republicans joined their Democratic colleagues in questioning the wisdom of President Obama's policies in a barrage of attacks on the Sunday morning news shows.

    Referencing Obama's repeated claims that he will not send American combat forces into Iraq, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said, 'I don't think we should ever sit back and tell our enemies what we will and will not do.

    'If we need special forces there - if that's what the generals say- then we need to do it,' McCarthy said on CBS' Face the Nation.

    'If we engage in a conflict that we know this is a threat to America, we should make it so one-sided that it gets over very quickly. So, we should have everything on the table to make sure we win this.'

    South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham argued on CNN's State of the Union that he too thought Obama erred in promising not to put boots on the ground.

    'There is no way I can see how we’re going to fix the problem in Iraq in Syria without American ground troops,' Graham said, according to Politico.

    'This mythical Arab army we’re trying to get up to go in on the ground in Syria will need a lot of American hand-holding.'

    Both men were referring to comments made by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, suggesting that the U.S. may not be able to defeat ISIS without using its own ground troops because the Iraqi army is ill equipped to fight the terrorist group.

    New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, another Republican, expressed worry on Sunday that the president isn't planning on destroying the the violent extremist group at all, even though he's assured the public that he will.

    'I’m fearful that as we look at the current military strategy that it is surrounding the November elections and that he won’t have the resolve to follow through with what needs to be done in a sustained effort to destroy ISIS,' she said.

    Despite his negative assessment of Obama's recent choices, Panetta told USA Today he still believes the president can still turn the situation around, not just for the country, but for himself during his remaining time in office.

    'He may have found himself again with regards to this ISIS crisis. I hope that's the case,' Panetta said.

    'And if he's willing to roll up his sleeves and engage with Congress in taking on some of these other issues, as I said I think he can establish a very strong legacy as president.

    'I think these next 2 1/2 years will tell us an awful lot about what history has to say about the Obama administration,' he concluded.



    Seems like their warmongering is going to be 30+ years in Iraq/Syria and will include many other countries that are not already being drone bombed and attacked or occupied...

  4. #24
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Religion, War and Atrocity


    The grisly deeds of IS in Iraq and Syria evoke once again the question as to the connection between religion and organized violence. Its companion question asks if Islam has a special affinity to such acts. Since the militants of IS, like their al-Qaeda counterparts, proclaim themselves to be Salafists, or devout fundamentalists, whose duty is to restore the purity of the Islam community of believers, the ummah, by destroying both false believers and the infidels with whom they are allied (as well as heretics), the claim is made that something about the religion is conducive to violence -- or even promotes it.

    The latter is today's burning issue due to headline events. It is a specious formulation of the issue, though. A cursory review of history reminds us that militants of all religions have committed atrocities in the name of their faith. The Crusaders celebrated their taking of Jerusalem by massacring its Muslim and Jewish citizens - after an arduous winter that included a bit of cannibalism. Then there were the auto-da-fe burnings, the mass slaughter of the Cathars, and on and on. The Israelites killed every man, woman, child (and beast) in Jericho at the command of their god Yahweh and performed other gruesome deeds in the confident belief that they were privileged by being His Chosen People. (Deuteronomy 6:21) Judaism's great tradition of universal humanism did not emerge until much later, taking full expression with the Pharisees at Jesus' time. Jesus was the epitome of a radical strain in Pharisee theology -- he was, after all, a Jew addressing a universalist message to other Jews. Even Buddhists have been comfortable on occasion gripping the bloody sword -- as witness Myanmar, Sri Lanka and, in the eighteenth century, the (Buddhist) Burmese razing of the great Thai Buddhist capital of Ayutthaya. Hindus, too, committed their share of atrocities during the Partition of 1947 and in subsequent communal riots as recently as 2002 in Gujarat. We also should recall that suicide bombing as a trademark of modern terrorism was inaugurated by the Tamil Tigers who committed hundreds of suicide attacks -- including that by the woman who targeted Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi -- because of India's intervention in support of the Sri Lankan Buddhist government's suppression of the Hindu Tamil rebellion. *

    It is tempting to play the game of debating which religion is more or less violent than another. In truth, that exercise beggars the bigger and more important question. Namely, is it religious doctrine and loyalty that can motivate some persons to abuse non-believers OR are all dogmatic, doctrinal ideologies prone to do so? Religion can be viewed as a sub-category of those aggressive ideologies which can take secular forms. The twentieth century has witnessed the lethal effects of imbuing societies with the avowedly secular (indeed, anti-religious) ideologies of Nazism and Communism of the Leninist-Maoist-Pol Pot variety. Nationalism, too, is an ideology which has demonstrated great propensities for violence. They all stress the fundamental distinction between "we" and "they" conducive to the atrocious treatment of others. An ideology that embraces the two dualities of 'we/they" and "good/evil" produces the combustible brew that is fatal to a sense of shared humanity.

    These non-religious movements share certain traits.
    · They evoke passionate loyalty to a community of believers/communitarians.
    · They subsume the individual in a collective movement that dictates behavior and sets tests of loyalty.
    · They arouse feelings of sacredness without calling upon the supernatural.

    · They promote bellicosity in dealing with others.

    Fascism was a political ideology that transcended religious and cultural boundaries. The Ba'ath parties of Iraq and Syria were of this order -- wholly secular and explicitly anti-religious. None of Saddam's crimes was committed in the name of Islam; he and Osama bin-Laden hated each other (Dick Cheney's self-serving fantasies notwithstanding.) Then there are the hybrids that meld nationalism, Fascism and religion. The Spanish Falange stands out. World War II saw atrocities committed by the Hungarian Arrow Cross, the Romanian Iron Guard, the Croatian Ustashi and the Slovakian Hlinka Guard. The Iron Guard was Orthodox. The others were all fiercely Catholic -- the Slovak President was a Catholic Priest, Jozef Tiso, who defied the Pope in his eagerness to deport Jews to the death camps. So, too, for the Lebanese Falangists.

    Intense nationalist identities thereby took on a sacred quality while identifying as the evil "other" persons within reach of different faiths who were brutally sacrificed to the tribal gods. Religious ideologies and secular ones (with the exception of Nazism/Fascism) share another noteworthy trait. They hold out the promise of a glorious future for their adherents. In the case of the great universalist religions, the promise is offered to all of mankind. So does Communism. The former emphasize a blissful Afterlife, the latter Heaven on Earth. Most religions also convey a message of benevolence, peace and good works that can alleviate suffering in this life even if the ultimate reward is in the next. That entails a code of ethical conduct, i.e. ethical conduct counts along with faith and belief. Those codes condemn individual violence among other forms of abusive conduct.

    The contrast of a strict moral code abjuring violence with a clearly etched line of differentiation between the community of believers and non-believers generates contradictions that never have been satisfactorily resolved. For Christians, the teachings of Jesus would seem to stigmatize war and violence of any kind. That is not the way it worked out. Political compulsions overcame the imperatives of individual ethics. "Rendering" unto Caesar involved much more than dutifully paying taxes. Moreover, the institutionalization of Christianity in the hierarchical and highly disciplined Church mixed the temporal and the sacred irrevocably. At the theological level, Christians' acceptance of the Old Testament as divinely inspired meant incorporating the spirit of Yahweh into the religion of Jesus the pacifist. If "vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" (ROMANS 12:18), the Church saw itself as properly His prime subcontractor.

    The spirit of domination and suppression was brought literally into the New Testament with the official inclusion of the Book of Revelations in the canon early in the 5th century. Written by the Jewish exile John of Patmos, it gave Gospel status to the ghastly Apocalyptic visions of the Hebrew prophets. In a bizarre closing of the circle, End Times evangelicals in the heart of America, like Ted Cruz the Dominionist, celebrate the Israeli assault on Muslim Palestinians, Operation Protective Edge, as a sign that the cataclysmic Armageddon -- as prophesized by a Jew of antiquity -- will soon announce the return of Christ the Redeemer for the Day of Judgment and the Eternal Salvation of Christians while recalcitrant Jews and other rejectionists of Christ are damned to fire and brimstone. Jesus, after all, is the Latinized Greek name for Joshua who "fit the battle of Jericho." (John argued that Jesus was the long-awaited messiah who would return to bring Salvation to the Hebrew people -- destroying their oppressor Rome and all the unrighteous. On Judgment Day, all those who "overcome" will be granted the ultimate blessing of sitting beside the Son of God on His throne). (3:14-22).

    Islamic holy texts contain these contradictions inherited from the Peoples of the Book along with the contradictory passages of the Koran, and the Hadith. There, one can find justification for a wide range of actions concerning violence and the treatment of believers as well as non-believers -- from the most benign to the pernicious.
    Some perspective on our times. Looking back over the history of the twentieth century, non-religious ideologies have killed tens of millions. The total dwarfs all those killed in religious violence over the centuries. In fact, religion overall was a minor contributor to the mayhem and murder that has marked the modern era. The current sense that we are living in an age of violent religious fanaticism stems from two causes. One is the emergence of radical fundamentalist groups in the Islamic world who use terror as an instrument to advance their cause. The other is the sharp difference between that phenomenon and the peacefully prosaic world of the Western democracies which have freed themselves from atavistic conflicts and war -- at least among themselves. They also are secular societies; thereby, they are inclined to indict those societies that remain infused with religion, especially the Muslim world. The religious mindset itself is difficult for them to comprehend. Many Europeans find salafists , their own ancestors and the extreme American evangelicals equally incomprehensible. Nor do they exert themselves unduly in trying to figure them out.

    Post-war Western Europe has sanitized itself of all ideologies -- religious, nationalist, political. Never have there been societies with so little passion in their politics. If America in the late eighteenth century was born against others' history, Western Europe in the mid-twentieth century succeeded in liberating itself from its own history. The shattering events of the first half of the century opened a way for the European peoples to change profoundly their ways of interacting.

    Liberation entailed an emotional, philosophical and intellectual distancing from ingredients of political life that had been the hallmarks of public affairs. Internationally, it was the lethal rivalries of power politics. Domestically, it was ideologically driven factional conflict. The 'civilian societies' of today's Europe (especially at its western end) have transmuted themselves. The polities of this new Europe were made possible more by a process of political subtraction than political addition. That is to say, the domination of public affairs by prosaic concerns and tame ambitions is effect and reinforced cause of the Europeans shedding those parts of their make-up that could impede the process of integration. Nationalist passion, ideological inspiration, the impulse to draw lines of all kinds between 'us' and 'them' -- all have dried up.

    The peoples of these "civilian" societies see their peaceable, materialistic ways as the desirable norm. Hence, their great difficulty in coming to terms with passionate nationalism (as in the Balkans) or passionate religion. The contrast with the United States is instructive. America shares some of these traits. It differs, though, in other cardinal respects. Americans on the whole are more religious, some of the religious are Christian Salafists in the fundamentalist sense; it is more overtly nationalistic; and it is more comfortable with violence - whether domestically or in the fighting of wars. These characteristics are in the nature of correlations. They do not establish a causal connection.

    The United States' engagement in military action has more to do with geostrategic realities, and history, than it does church attendance or the omnipresent stars-and-stripes lapel pin. The tolerance for the resulting effects of war (casualties of Americans and casualties of foreigners both) derives as well from the unique American experience: never having had the homeland ravaged by other states (1813 aside); accustomed to victory; and the distinctive sense of mission that at once ascribes selfless virtue to its actions and promotes the idea of the United States as the agent as well as beacon of Progress.

    This unique mix of national characteristics generates a constant tension in American foreign policy between the idealistic strain and the realist strain. In the "war on terror" era they have managed to reinforce each other so as to justify and generate domestic support for the audacious strategy of hyper-active, multiform engagements in alien societies. Concretely, the United States simultaneously plays the roles of social worker, policeman, law giver and judge. In the process, it has killed a lot of people -- most of them innocents. It also has committed atrocities -- calculatingly as in its torture programs. Yet none of these baneful effects cuts very deep into the American psyche. Nothing basic is scrutinized. Self-image, sense of moral superiority, belief in the rightness of American actions -- all remain intact.

    This phenomenon cannot be explained in terms of ideological conviction impervious to evidence. The distinctive American civil religion, as political doctrine, is too abstract and enlightened. Neither instruction from the Deity nor solemn vows dictate the dubious actions mentioned above. Nationalism does exercise an influence but Manifest Destiny is no longer a potent motivator. Still, the combination of American attributes has produced a collective psyche that is reconciled with some types of conduct that we would and do denounce in others.

    The contradictory elements in the American attitudes toward its use of organized violence are kept down to a tolerable level by two features of how we conduct wars, in particular the "war on terror." First, by replacing the draft with a professional army, war and its consequences can be kept at a distance. Indeed, one can opt out entirely simply by not volunteering. Second, the growing reliance on high-tech weapons is changing the experience of killing. "Flying" a drone from an air-conditioned room in Nevada is not the same as cutting the throat of a suspected Taliban on the outskirts of some Afghan village. The psychological difference for the one doing the killing is enormous. The public at large also is affected differently. Some of this is visual. During the "war on terror" we have been shown very few graphic pictures or video of the dead and dying -- on either side. The contrast with Vietnam coverage is striking. No pictures of torture have been revealed -- other than the most mild variety as occurred at Abu Ghraib. The CIA destroyed most of the rest.

    Hence, the vivid pictures of beheadings by IS, publicized for their own propaganda purposes, make a dramatic emotional impact. One effect is to associate the gruesome acts with the Salafist doctrine (correctly) and with Islam generally (incorrectly). We are told that "Muslims do this kind of thing, things that we would never do." Yet, we Christians and other non-Muslim Americans killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What might the reaction among Muslims, and devotees of other religions, have been were there photographers on the spot able to record the suffocated, the fried, the irradiated, the cremated? We did in fact see graphic images of many dead and maimed innocents in Gaza killed by the Israeli military, with these acts being excused by nearly the entire American political class of diverse religious affiliations. Does the nature of the cause in whose name these actions were taken make a crucial moral difference?

    Islam, Christianity, Judaism and every other religion can influence our behavior -- in varying ways, to varying degrees. So religion does count. But indictment for criminal acts should not be directed at one particular religion. The ultimate culprit is our human natures -- individual and social. Or, if you prefer, the Heavenly Father who created such conflicted and flawed creatures.

    * According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, LTTE was the first insurgent organisation to use concealed Explosive belts and vests. The specialized unit that carried out suicide attacks was named the Black Tigers. According to the information published by the LTTE, the Black Tigers carried out 378 suicide attacks between 5 July 1987, and 20 November 2008. Out of these, 274 were male and 104 were female.


  5. #25
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    FBI Whistleblower: “U.S Is Reviving Terror Scare With ISIS To Promote The Terror War Industry”

    October 21, 2014

    So called “terrorist” attacks have been taking place on the planet for decades, the most memorable one being 9/11. Almost 15 years later, that one “terrorist” attack has served as a massive awakening tool for the human race, allowing us to see through the veil that’s been blinding the masses for so long, but we still have a long way to go.

    Interestingly, it’s a well documented fact that Al-Qaeda was a creation of the CIA, there are multiple sources that show that, and it seems that ISIS might not be any different. (source)(source) The same terrorist groups the United States and their allies are fighting against were created by the United States and their allies themselves, this is a historical fact, so it’s important we ask the same questions when it comes to ISIS and keep our minds open to that possibility.

    Many believe these groups are created to give the false illusion that we are under attack, in order to justify the infiltration of other countries for ulterior motives, and many still believe we are going after “terrorists.”

    Here is a video of US four star General Wesley Clark pretty much alluding to the same thing.

    The video below is of FBI whistle blower Sibel Edmonds appearing on RT news. She is a former FBI translator and founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC). She gained a lot of attention in 2002 after she accused a colleague of covering up illicit activity involving Turkish nationals, which included serious security breaches and cover-ups, alluding to intelligence that was deliberately suppressed.

    Here’s what she had to say about the “terrorist” group ISIS. She basically points to the belief that ISIS is the creation of those who are calling them terrorists. Think about that for a moment.

    You can read a full transcript of this interview here.

    What do you think? Do you think ISIS is just another creation of the United States and their allies? Share your thoughts in the comment section below.


    Download video and see Transcript below:

    Download video (201.2 MB)

    President Obama admits the rise of Islamic State was never properly addressed by the U.S. intelligence. Vice-President of the States puts all the blame on America’s allies, saying it were they who funded jihadists. Terrorists threaten direct attacks on American soil. Is the U.S. ready to respond with more than just airstrikes? Was it really unaware of the growing threat? And were that the allies that gave a helping hand to the radicalism in Iraq and Syria? To find answers to these questions, we speak to FBI whistleblower; Sibel Edmonds is on Sophie&Co today.


    Sophie Shevardnadze: Former FBI whistleblower, author, Sibel Edmonds is my guest today. Sibel, it’s really great to have you on our show. So, when asked if the rise of ISIS was a surprise, Obama admitted that the intelligence community underestimated ISIS in Syria – did it not see it coming in Syria or Iraq?

    Sibel Edmonds: Well, the answer depends on if you want to take President Obama or the U.S. authorities in their words and evaluate based on that. I think whether the rise of ISIS is mainly about the brand change. Sometimes… sometimes as it happens in marketing we get to see exactly the same principle within the geopolitical games that have been in play for a while now, especially since the end of the Cold War, and the Al-Qaeda brand began wearing off, and that brand now has been changed to ISIS - as always, by design; and, considering the fact that we cultivated and put together and financed and created the ISIS, for me it goes into one of those caricature or funny statements that are put out by the mainstream media, statements issued by people like Obama or anybody from the State Department.

    SS: So what you’re saying basically is that it was expected for ISIS to turn into something so powerful, into a powerful group, but they are not just admitting to it?

    SE: To answer the question briefly, the ISIS is what is the U.S. media and the propaganda creators behind the media decided to create. I mean, tomorrow or 3 months from now we will start hearing another name, that we’ve never heard of, and within a month they can make that the world’s greatest or the most dangerous threat. And, again, that is the main concept here, and I know the Western media, U.S. media, the Western media, they have been playing it as such, but they did exactly the same thing with Al-Qaeda. I mean, Al-Qaeda was hundred people, or 100,000 people, or ten million people… Another interesting perspective in this is that I referred to the brand-change, and sometimes you have to switch the brand for the marketing purposes – with ISIS as you can look at and see from the term, from the name now, the brand created, the Western powers have gotten closer to just name and link the entire global terrorism to Islam, and that’s another marketing strategy by the U.S., NATO and main Western countries.

    SS: Ok. Once again, what we hear from the media is that President Obama blamed the chaos of the Syrian civil war for the rise of ISIS. At the same time, the U.S. doesn’t hide that it’s been helping the rebels in Syria from the very beginning. Did the U.S. intelligence know who they are funding?

    SE: Absolutely, as they did in 80s with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, as they did it with various so-called Islamic terror cells within Caucasus and Central Asia, as they did with Al-Qaeda, and this is not different. As I’ve said, you’re only looking at a brand change; you’re not looking at any kind of a new phenomenon, as far as the U.S. global perpetual warfare is concerned.

    SS: Now, the U.S. is only ramping up support for moderate rebel groups in Syria – or so they say. So, who works to determine if rebels are moderate or no? Is there really a way of knowing that?

    SE: Again, it is really to talk to or talk around all these propaganda created by the Western powers through the mainstream media, and I feel that if I start even commenting on that, its belittling the facts on the ground. Again, I want to go back and provide the context, and say: look, Mujahedeen, which later became aka Al-Qaeda, they were the freedom fighters. So, and we have had similar situation in the Balkans during the war. You know, you had people or the factions that were considered fanatics or criminal or terrorists, whether it was KLA, and then they became “freedom fighters”, they became our allies. You’re looking exactly at the same thing. Different brand, but you’re looking exactly at the same phenomenon, and we can talk around this and bring in all the different factors, they should put forward by the Western media, and then we can put it and compare it, what has been happening in the past 30-35 years, and we’ll see that the marketing strategy is the same, it’s just a brand differs.

    SS: What we’re seeing right now is that the U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria aren’t stopping ISIS – well, at least not yet – and the Kurdish fighters on the ground are asking for the ground support. Will the U.S. be sending troops to fight ISIS on the ground? What do you think?

    SE: That’s going to depend on various factors, on what’s going to happen. I’m going to go back to context and history – the Kurdish factions and the Kurdish factor has always been used and played. The Kurdish faction and the Kurdish factor was the case when we had the war with Iraq. We had the northern territory and the Kurdish area, and then we always get to “Okay, what is going to be Turkey’s role? Are they going to be weary of what’s going to happen afterwards, if this happens with us and the Kurds?” And again, you’re looking at exactly the same replicate of what we had in place, what was taking place during the initial stage of war against Iraq.

    SS: Right now, the U.S. military actions in Iraq have one set of objectives, and then, in Syria, another – for example, Kurds in Iraq receive so much aid, so quickly from the U.S. – unlike the Kurds in Syria. What, is it, like, two kinds of brands of Kurds, like you say? Why is to assume 2 different strategies when fighting one enemy?

    SE: Absolutely. You have the Kurds in Iran – and you’re looking at totally different characteristics and where do they stand within the… Looking at there, there are over 25-30 million Kurds, and the Kurds in Syria, we have Kurds in Turkey, you have the Kurds in Iraq, the Kurds in Iran; and right now the game and the play being centered around the stage in Syria, so we’re looking at a different mechanism there, then maybe, we’re looking at what’s happening with the northern Iraq. And also, you have to look at oil factor. What do we have in Syria, where the Kurds are concentrated, versus what we have in Northern Iraq, in such places as Kirkuk and well, do we have an oil factor there or we don’t have it there? So, if you start putting those kinds of information that comes with region and a different sects, let’s say, in this case – Kurds, you’re looking at several different factors in play, you’re not looking at only one, so you’re not looking at the Kurdish faction, and here are the Kurds, and trying to, basically, put the ball in the same bucket. It all depends on the geostrategic facts, and what we’re facing, what we have, what is in play, what is at the stake – and, again, you can never compare Northern Iraq with what’s happening in Syria and the Kurdish region in Syria.

    SS: Yeah, because I was thinking maybe they were not helping the Kurds in Syria, because they’re affiliated with the Kurds in Turkey, and America, maybe, doesn’t want to upset Turkey, being one of its greatest allies, no?

    SE: No, not really, because you had exactly the same scenario with the Kurds in northern Iraq and they Kurds inside Turkey. If you look at the border region and the cross-border activities between the Kurds in Iraq and the Kurds in Turkey, we had exactly the same situation – and this was one of the main reasons that Turkey did not want to allow U.S. using it’s airbase during the early stage of the war against Iraq. It was about the Kurds in northern Iraq and how that would upset the equilibrium that the Turkish government wants to preserve and keep in place as far as the Kurdish faction is concerned.

    SS: Now, the former CIA chief and the ex-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the U.S. is looking at at least a 30-year war against ISIS, which is not at all what the White House is telling the public. Is he exaggerating? What’s your estimate?

    SE: I would say it’s a very short period; I’m really surprised, because we just talked about the brand change. The war against Al-Qaeda was declared as a “forever war” and it has been expanding. I mean, when the war against Al-Qaeda started, it was supposed to be in Afghanistan, and we started chasing Al-Qaeda in Yemen, and Pakistan with all the drone attacks, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the fact that this was going to be a forever war… and now that the brand has changed to ISIS, I’m very surprised that the former FBI director is stamping it with a short-time period. I believe 30 year period is very short, unless that have already in plan other sects or other factions that they are going to declare the “world’s great and most dangerous terrorists”, I would say it’s a very short period of time. We currently are more interested in an ongoing, never-ending, perpetual war, so I would, if you compare it with what we have been characterizing - or our government and the media – Al-Qaeda, I’m surprised that he has put such a short time-stamp on ISIS. Considering the attraction, or the attractiveness, of the brand, because it has the world “Islam” built into it, and let’s just forget Al-Qaeda. I mean, Al-Qaeda was the just the noun, the name – and this case you’re looking at the far-reaching implications. Now you declare that current greatest threatening organization that has the word “Islam” built into it – and I think it’s much more attractive to be used. So, I would say, yeah, it should be forever. I’m surprised it’s 30 years.

    SS: Now, U.S. Vice-president Joe Biden blamed Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Turkey for helping extremists in Syria – then he later apologized for his comments, but was he right?

    SE: Rather than dignifying people like Biden, let’s talk about, again, context and history – and I’m going to be repeating that, and I’m sorry if the viewers are going to say “how many times is she going to say “context and history”” – well, my website, my news organization was the first one to really break within the U.S. the training of the Syrian rebels in Turkey, and this was 6 or 5 months before anything about Syria actually made it to the news; using a U.S. airbase – and this is in Southern Turkey, close to the border with Syria – and this was NATO and the U.S. factions training and arming and sending back, having them cross the border, rebels, long before Syria actually became the news. As I said this was done in Turkey by the NATO forces, mainly U.S. and British forces, and it was something that was planned and designed and implemented by the U.S. So, for Joe Biden to come and put this out right now… of course he will get away with it, because the mainstream media here is not going to go and revisit the facts that were exposed with the activities of the U.S., what they did in Turkey, training these faction – now it’s called ISIS, it’s like the French fries or the freedom fighters: you’re looking exactly at the same fries at the same price. That’s all I’m going to say, it’s just ludicrous. Then he took it back, because he upset the current president in Turkey, Erdogan. I wouldn’t even find it newsworthy, but it’s funny.

    SS: “Funny” is the right word. Why is it more important for Sunni countries like Qatar or Turkey to bring down President Assad than to contain extremism? Because, the Qataris are helping the anti-Assad rebels and Turks asking Kurds to turn against Assad before they get any help with ISIS – why?

    SE: In reality, if you’re looking at the factual objective and the analysis of it, really, it’s not to their advantage whatsoever. I mean, you just named the countries, for example, Turkey is a member of NATO and Turkey is greatly managed and directed by the U.S. – has been for a several decades, there’s no question about that – and then you’re looking at the United Emirates and the countries within the region, including Saudi Arabia, you’re looking at the tentacles of the United States. I call them the “tentacle nations”; so, if you start looking and say “what is their advantage?” – of course, there are no advantages, and you only look at disadvantages. If you start polling people within these countries, and I can speak of Turkey, for example, if you start getting the opinion polls in Turkey, you will see that over 90% of Turkey are against such moves; and Turkey had a pretty good relationship with Assad and with Syria, they’ve engaged in some really good level of commerce. There has been zero advantage. They have to implement policies created, designed and issued by the U.S. and NATO, and that’s what they are doing. So, to answer your question – it has never been question of any other nations, especially in the region, their interest or their advantages or even comparative advantages. It has always been about what is designed, what is put in place, what orders are issued here in the U.S., and that’s the end of it. Other people’s interests, other nations interest is not even in the equation, it has never been. If you ask a populous people in those nations, they would actually nod and they would say yes, that’s exactly what they believe – because that’s the reality.

    SS: All right, here’s another possible and interesting turn of events – FBI chief James Comeywarned terrorists are working on an effort to attack the U.S. very-very soon. Is the U.S. ready to respond?

    SE: We have to look at different things and see why this statement was made. Is it based on some sort of facts and real solid intelligence gathered, or is it the fact that… for example, we have had for the TSA, for the flights, the threat level has been really low, and when that goes for a long time, people get antsy, they say “This is really annoying to have all these screens out there and going through them, we haven’t had any terrorist threats really, the level has not been blinking red or even orange, it’s been yellow, let’s go through the rainbow colors” – so, it’s time to re-energize the Americans with the fear of terrorism. We need to have more expenditure for things to put in place, because we can go ahead and increase the threat level within the airports. Let me give you an example. If you look at the stock market and stock prices for all the military-industrial complex-related companies and firms, you will see how they have just gone up tremendously since the brand switch from Al-Qaeda to ISIS, and this is, again, the brand-change I’m referring to, this is when you say “yes, now we can go ahead and produce and sell more to the government and it will spend billions more”. So, the same thing is true for the internal security, fear-mongering factors on the ground in the U.S. It’s time to re-energize that fear, and that is exactly what they are doing. What’s going to follow this is there’s going to be more measures put in place, whether it’s in the airports, or whether it’s the hiring within the FBI, or increasing the number of informants. Those are the things that are going to follow this announcement: “we have to have more expenditure, because of the public consent, because the fear level is going to go up, and therefore those expenditures are going to be justified” – and it is that simple as that.

    SS: The FBI also says that dozens of Americans are believed to be fighting in Syria with rebel groups. How did that happen?

    SE: Well it has to happen. If it’s not the case, it has to happen, because you’re looking at…how ordinary Americans perceive these things? Think about it: Syria and this area, that region in Iraq – they are thousands of miles away, what can they do to us from there. So, it’s not enough to raise the terror threat and really do some heavy-duty fear-mongering. But, if you bring some U.S. elements and ties there, if we have Americans over there, who are going to come back here, and they are going to, you know, be our boogey-men on the ground, and they going to blow up buildings – that’s going to be marketing-wise more attractive, and it’s going to be easier to sell to the American public the notion of our war against ISIS. You’re not going to hear much of the Al-Qaeda for a while, Al-Qaeda is going to disappear and exit the stage, replaced by ISIS – so yes, this is another marketing strategy. If we start looking at what’s happening, what has been happening and what is being put forward by these people, including the former CIA director and the U.S. – and if you start looking at it from the marketing perspective we get to find more answers and understand what’s going on, rather than trying to approach this through some logical, political, philosophical or even sociological analysis. I think the best model that fits and explains what’s happening right now is the marketing model, and we should look at it as such.

    SS: Twitter is suing the FBI because it is not allowed to tell the public when the government asks for surveillance help – why is surveilling Twitter such a big deal for the U.S. government? Does so much depend on Twitter and other social media?

    SE: No. Why surveilling all Americans through NSA with their phone, every single conversation is such an important thing for the government? Again, I’m going to take us back and say what kind of reaction from the public does this create? When we hear every day how much is being gathered from the Facebook is true and what’s being gathered and collected and how people are being monitored through their Twitters, combined with what we have already known since 2004-2005, the expose on NSA, you have a better chance of controlling the majority, controlling the people.

    SS: Can the FBI and CIA, NSA control their information; prevent it from gaining public attention. Like, what can prevent people like you, for instance, or Ed Snowden, from speaking out?

    SE: Nothing. Nothing prevents people from speaking out. I have been speaking out. I don’t think the U.S. government is really bothered. If the U.S. government is really bothered by people who are speaking out, people like me or some credible, real whistleblowers, and if that becomes a real threat, it’s very easy for them to take out those people, to eliminate them. But they are not, because it’s hasn’t risen to that level yet. If the reach were such and if the consequences of people speaking out really reached a real masses and brought out some reaction – then you would be looking at totally different scenario, or the reaction ,or action, by the U.S. government. But we haven’t seen it yet.

    SS: Sibel, thank you so much for this wonderful insight and for your take on things that are going on around us right now. We were taking to Sibel Edmonds, FBI whistleblower. We were talking about how the U.S. government is handling the situation around ISIS. Thanks a lot for your thoughts, that’s it for this edition of Sophie&Co, I will see you next time.

  6. #26
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    United Nations: Israel Is Helping Syrian Jihadists, Including ISIS

    Today, the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, which monitors the ceasefire borders dividing Syria and Israel on the Golan Heights, has filed a report alleging a network of contact and collaboration between the Israeli Defense Forces and Salafist Islamist rebels (including ISIS and Al-Qaeda) currently engaged in a war against Assad, Hezbollah, and Iran.

    The UNDOF observed activity in the Golan Heights over an 18 month period and found that the Israeli military was providing clandestine medical treatment for wounded Islamist fighters. Additionally, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz cites aspects of the report where armed rebels have been seen interacting heavily with the Israeli military. Representatives of Israel’s Druze minority have been complaining about this for a long time, culminating with an official complaint lodged last month in response to the Israeli government’s ongoing logistical and medical support for members of the al-Nusra Front, which is an Al-Qaeda affiliate, and ISIS, two groups that have committed barbaric crimes against humanity in Syria and beyond. In another instance recorded by the UN report, members of the IDF were seen giving boxes with unknown contents to armed Syrian rebels.

    Further accentuating this collaboration, Israeli fighter jets have attacked Syrian military sites, as well as areas around the “safe zone” near Damascus International Airport, on Sunday evening.
    According to a public statement made by commander of the Syrian Armed Forces, Lt. General Ali Abdulla Ayoud:
    “This aggression confirms Israel directly supports terrorism in Syria, in addition to the known Western and regional countries, raising the morale of terrorist organizations, led by Jabhat al-Nusra, an arm of al-Qaida in the Levant, and ISIS,” he said today.
    Israel has in recent times shown discontent with the West’s campaign to help contain ISIS alongside Iran and Syria. According to a Haaretz report from October 31st, 2014, the IDF’s Northern commander lamented America’s intervention against the Sunni extremists because it would galvanize “the Shi’ite Bloc” of Lebanon, Iran and Syria: “I believe the West intervened too early and not necessarily in the right direction”. The IDF officer also focused on the military power of Hezbollah and uncertainty that the IDF could defeat them in a war.

    Hezbollah defeated Israel in the 2006 Lebanon War, and today is one of the leading forces in the coalition fighting against Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria. Russian officials, who have stressed the importance of protecting the rights of Christians and minorities in their foreign policy towards the Middle East (unlike the United States), have duly noted Hezbollah’s active role in defending Lebanese and Syrian Christians from Al-Qaeda and ISIS violence. Moscow’s deputy foreign minister, Mikhail Bogdanov, has recently met with key figures in Lebanese politics-including Hezbollah- to discuss these issues and the Assad government has made significant strides forward in defeating Zionist-backed Islamic extremist forces.


  7. #27
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Russia: Israel is training ISIS terrorists

    A top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday accused Israel and the United States of training the Islamic State in order to undermine Moscow’s interests in the Middle East.In an interview with Iranian state television, Alexander Prokhanov said that Mossad agents were training ISIS fighters in Syria and Iraq.

    “ISIS is a tool at the hands of the United States. They tell the Europeans that if we (the Americans) do not intervene, ISIS will cause you harm,” he told PRESS TV.

    “They launched their first terror attack against us just a few days back in Chechnya,” he said.

    Gunmen attacked a police post and stormed a building on Thursday in Grozny, capital of Russia‘s southern province of Chechnya, killing 10 policemen in clashes in which 10 of the attackers were also killed.

    The bloodiest fighting in Chechnya for months erupted a few hours before President Vladimir Putin said in a speech in Moscow he would defend Russia against what he called attempts to dismember it.

    The attack underlined the fragile security situation in Chechnya more than a decade after Putin sent troops to quell an Islamist separatist uprising there.

    Ten policemen and 10 suspected militants were killed, Russia’s National Anti-terrorism Committee (NAK) said, adding that another 28 law enforcement personnel had been wounded.

    However, Putin praised the Kremlin-backed leader of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, for carrying out a “professional” security operation.


  8. #28
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    US pretends to be fighting against ISIL: Iran official

    A senior Iranian diplomat says the United States pretends to be fighting the ISIL Takfiri terrorist group as a trick to advance its policies in the Middle East region.

    “The reality is that the United States is not acting to eliminate the ISIL. They are not even interested in weakening the ISIL; they are only interested in managing it,” Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Hossein Amir-Abdollahian told Reuters in an exclusive interview on Wednesday evening.

    Since August, the US and some of its allies have been conducting airstrikes against what they say are ISIL positions in Iraq. Some members of the US-led coalition also started bombarding ‘ISIL targets’ inside Syria in September.

    However, the raids have so far failed to dislodge the Takfiri group.

    “On the ground, where the US should take serious action, there are no serious actions taking place. The US is not doing anything,” Amir-Abdollahian said, adding, “One day, they support the ISIL, another day they are against terrorism.”

    ​The ISIL terrorists control some parts of Iraq and Syria. They are engaged in crimes against humanity in the areas under their control. They have terrorized and killed people of all communities, including Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, and Christians.


  9. #29
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    This Should Go Well: Westboro Baptist Church Says It’s Going To Iraq To Protest ISIS

    Westboro Baptist Church, the hate group that masquerades as a religious organization, is known for their publicity stunts, but they may have bit off more than they can chew with this one. After a comedian offered to pay for them to fly to Iraq so they can protestreal Christian persecution at the hands of Islamic militants, the group tweeted that they have accepted his offer. They want to take their picket signs and head over to a country currently occupied by a group that beheads Christian children without hesitation – this ought to go well.

    To bring you up to speed: Last week, Australian comedian Adam Hills gave an brilliant, hilarious proposal to the WBC after learned that they planned to – surprise, surprise – picket Robin Williams’ funeral. On his show, The Last Leg, Hills pointed out that the infamous “God Hates Fags” group is quick to march around with signs protesting American hedonism, but don’t have the courage to protest the daily persecution Christians in Iraq are facing at the hands of “the people threatening to behead Christians if they don’t convert.”

    Hills tells the group:

    “If you really believe in standing up to those threatening the christian way of life, Westboro Baptist Church, how about putting your money where your mouth is, taking a direct flight to Iraq.”

    Well it appears that the WBC have seen Hills’ show and take his offer very seriously. Yesterday, when someone asked them if they were aware of it, the church tweeted that not only had they heard of it but had already accepted the offer.

    We accepted! Whence tickets? @PhilCooke: An offer to fly WBC members 2 Iraq 2 protest. Sounds like good idea to me: http://t.co/97BEusEBxH
    — Westboro Baptist (@WBCSays) August 21, 2014

    They also claim to have picketed in Iraq before, although the picture they used in the tweet is decidedly not in Iraq.

    Ironically, @adamhillscomedy, we have picketed in Iraq before. Google it. #toldya cc: @TheLastLeg@kiis1065 pic.twitter.com/iKaL2mTMZu — Westboro Baptist (@WBCSays) August 21, 2014

    I took up their suggestion to “Google it” but couldn’t find a single mention of their being in Iraq aside from their own website’s claim. It’s possible that they’ve been to Iraq before, but if they have it was not well advertised.
    It appears that Hills’ show has also learned that the WBC has taken up their offer.

    Ooh! #FingersCrossed RT @adamhillscomedy: So @WBCSays want us to fly them to Iraq. I’ll give my reply tomorrow on @TheLastLeg, 10pm Ch 4.
    — Westboro Baptist (@WBCSays) August 21, 2014

    If the two sides manage to work something out and the WBC winds up in Iraq, it’s safe to say that their lives would very much be in danger. Iraq, especially large swaths of it now occupied by IS militants, is extremely unfriendly to American citizens, Christian, but most particularly American Christians carrying signs reading “Muslims Die, God Laughs.”
    Just this week an American journalist was beheaded by ISIS and they are threatening to do the same to another one. At the same time, ISIS has exiled thousands of Iraqi Christians, killing those who don’t leave.From Think Progress:

    ISIS has been targeting Christians ever since it first got started. As a militant group fighting against both the forces of President Bashar al-Assad and rebel groups in Syria’s civil war, ISIS wreaked havoc on Syrian Christians, torching churches in the historic Christian city of Maaloula and kidnapping bishops. Still, Mosul’s large Christian population remained determined to remain in the city where their ancestors have lived for1,600 years.
    That all changed when ISIS issued a statement last Thursday ordering the city’s Christians to convert, pay a hefty religious tax, or face execution on Saturday.

    Since then, there have been reports of mass killings and targeted murders of Christians in Iraq. If the Westboro Baptist Church chooses to walk into that, it would be the first time in the church’s history that they would actually be protesting something worth protesting. It may also be short lived. Depending on where they chose to stage their protest, they may need to start planning a protest of their own funerals.



    I say we send all of them to go protest over there, take their signs with them!

  10. #30
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Middle East Officials Question ''Convenient Mistakes'' Of US Airdrops To Al-Qaeda

    Brandon Turbeville
    Activist Post

    As the “convenient” and “accidental” airdrops of weapons and supplies by the US and NATO into the hands of ISIS and al-Qaeda jihadists fighting inside both Syria and Iraq begin to draw more attention throughout largely alternative media outlets, such convenient mistakes are also being questioned by national governments, particularly those who may be in the crosshairs of NATO in the very near future.

    Individuals who have come to question the nature of the allegedly accidental air drops are legion, but one of the more recent and high profile skeptics is the Commander of Iran’s Basij Force, Brigadier General Mohammed Reza Naqdi.

    In an address to a group of Basij forces on January 5, Naqdi stated that “The US directly supports the ISIL in Iraq and the US planes drop the needed aids and weapons for ISIL in Iraq …” In addition, he stated that the US Embassy in Baghdad is the command center for ISIL and other “takfiri” militants.

    Indeed, while the United States military portrays the receipt of weapons and supplies by ISIS as entirely accidental, Naqdi presents the situation as quite the opposite. Contradicting the propaganda and stated aims of the US military, Naqdi stated that the Iraqi forces have managed to retrieve aid that was actually intended for ISIS fighters, not the other way around.

    Naqdi, however, is merely the latest official in the region who has suggested that the U.S. “assault” on ISIS is half-hearted at best. Iraqi Member of Parliament Majid al-Gharawi recently stated that all information available “pointed out that US planes are supplying ISIL organization, not only in Salahuddin province, but also other provinces,” according to Iraq TradeLink.

    He also stated that the United States is “not serious in fighting against the ISIL organization, because they have the technological power to determine the presence of ISIL gunmen and destroy them in one month [but have not done so].”

    Gharawi suggested that the “the US is trying to expand the time of the war against the ISIL to get guarantees from the Iraqi government to have its bases in Mosul and Anbar provinces.”

    It is important to mention that, according to FARS News, the Iraqi Parliamentary Security and Defense Commission revealed that a US plane did indeed supply ISIS with arms and ammunition in the Salahuddin province in Iraq, yet that revelation has received little to no coverage in the West.

    In late December, 2014, yet another Iraqi lawmaker, Nahlah al-Hababi, questioned the motives and commitment of the US and its anti-ISIL coalition and claimed that the terrorist groups are actually receiving a large amount of aid dropped by unidentified aircraft.

    Hababi is quoted by FARS News Agency as stating “The international coalition is not serious about air strikes on ISIL terrorists and is even seeking to take out the popular Basij (voluntary) forces from the battlefield against the Takfiris so that the problem with ISIL remains unsolved in the near future.”

    “Basij” is a term that largely means “volunteer” as in volunteer forces. She also was quoted as saying that “The ISIL terrorists are still receiving aids from unidentified fighter jets in Iraq and Syria.”

    FARS also quotes Hababi as pointing out that the airstrikes launched by NATO are only launched in areas where Kurdish Peshmerga forces are fighting, while such strikes launched in other areas are “not so precise.” The suggestion, of course, is that the “coalition” has a vested interest in supporting the Kurdish forces while, at the same time, supporting ISIS in the process of weakening Syria’s Assad, Iraqi nationalism, and presumably, Iranian influence. Clearly, Hababi is not far off from the reality of the situation.

    As FARS writes,

    In late December, the US-led coalition dropped aids to the Takfiri militants in an area North of Baghdad.

    Field sources in Iraq told al-Manar that the international coalition airplanes dropped aids to the terrorist militants in Balad, an area which lies in Salahuddin province North of Baghdad.

    In October, a high-ranking Iranian commander also slammed the US for providing aid supplies to ISIL, adding that the US claims that the weapons were mistakenly airdropped to ISIL were untrue.

    The US and the so-called anti-ISIL coalition claim that they have launched a campaign against this terrorist and criminal group – while supplying them with weapons, food and medicine in Jalawla region (a town in Diyala Governorate, Iraq). This explicitly displays the falsity of the coalition’s and the US’ claims,” Deputy Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Brigadier General Massoud Jazayeri said.

    The US claimed that it had airdropped weapons and medical aid to Kurdish fighters confronting the ISIL in Kobani, near the Turkish border in Northern Syria.

    The US Defense Department said that it had airdropped 28 bundles of weapons and supplies, but one of them did not make it into the hands of the Kurdish fighters.

    Video footage later showed that some of the weapons that the US airdropped were taken by ISIL militants.

    The question of such “convenient accidents” are by no means unique to the Middle Eastern, Iraqi, or Iranian press reports, however. These types of “mistakes” happen on a seemingly regular basis in areas where the United States is allegedly fighting the very terrorist organization it created.

    In October, 2014, “coalition” forces dropped a number of aid supplies and ammunition allegedly intended for the Iraqi people and anti-Isis forces on the ground into territory controlled by ISIS. The “mistake” was confirmed by Iraqi officials and parliamentarians.

    Only in the West, it seems, does the general public look upon the so-called mistakes as anything but a sloppy excuse to re-arm NATO’s terrorist mercenaries in order to reinvigorate their proxy war.


  11. #31
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Fidel Castro says Mossad behind Islamic State

    Ex-Cuban leader compares NATO to the Nazi SS, lashes out at US and Europe


    Cuban ex-president Fidel Castro lashed out at Israel, the United States and Europe on Monday, saying Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency was behind the radical Islamic State group and comparing NATO military representatives to the Nazi SS
    In a column published in Cuban state media, the father of the island’s communist revolution also attacked US Senator John McCain over United States policy in the Middle East, calling him “Israel’s most unconditional ally.”

    “The world has seen no respite in recent years, particularly since the European Economic Community, under the strict and unconditional leadership of the United States, decided the time had come to settle scores with what was left of two great nations (Russia and China) that…had carried out the heroic deed of putting an end to the imperialist colonial order imposed on the world by Europe and the United States,” said the 88 year old leader.

    He accused the West of “cynicism” and said the trait had become “a symbol of imperialist policy.”
    He singled out McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, saying he had supported Israel’s Mossad and “participated together with that service in the creation of the Islamic State, which today controls a considerable and vital portion of Iraq and reportedly one-third of Syria as well.”

    Turning to NATO, Castro said the alliance’s representatives were reminiscent of Nazi Germany’s SS.
    “Many people are astonished when they hear the statements made by some European spokesmen for NATO when they speak with the style and face of the Nazi SS,” he said.

    “Adolf Hitler’s greed-based empire went down in history with no more glory than the encouragement provided to NATO’s aggressive and bourgeois governments, which makes them the laughing stock of Europe and the world.”

    Castro handed power to his younger brother Raul in 2006 amid a health crisis, and has since devoted his time to writing books and articles and receiving foreign dignitaries.

    Fidel Castro says Mossad behind Islamic State | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/fidel-c...#ixzz3OIwu65Sv

  12. #32
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    US Army Report:ISIS and Israel working together to counter Assad to cement Israels Energy Grab


    ISIS and Israel are working together to counter Assad …”Fourthly, in 2013 Israel granted oil exploration licenses in the Syrian-claimed Golan Heights, spelling “potential for another armed conflict between the two parties should substantial hydrocarbon resources be discovered.” According to a report to the UN Security Council in early December, Israel has been in regular contact with Syrian rebels, including Islamic State fighters, raising the question of Israel’s role in supporting anti-Assad extremists to cement its control of Golan’s potential fossil fuel resources.”

    There have been reports that ISIS fighters are being treated by Israel. A doctor in the field only can give out first aid , there has to be a facility in which extensive care is provided. Egypt ,Iraq,Syria nor Turkey is providing this care. Also, funding of thousands of men require vast amount of resources and tight network . How is ISIS able to accomplish this in very short time? Obama had said for few years American weapons had been “leaked” to ISIS, he surely can think the public is that stupid.

    Article below by Nafeez Ahmed gives details and sources.

    A new report by the US Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute emphasises the need for “US security and military support” to its key allies in the Eastern Mediterranean, particularly Israel, over access to recent vast discoveries of regional oil and gas.

    The Army study, released earlier in December 2014, concludes that extensive US military involvement “may prove essential in managing possible future conflict” in case of “an eruption of natural resource conflict in the East Mediterranean,” due to huge gas discoveries in recent years.

    Visible US engagement is also necessary to ward off the regional encroachment of “emerging powers and potential new peace brokers such as Russia – which already entertains a strong interest in East Mediterranean gas developments – and notably China.”

    Fossil fuel bonanza in the LevantSince 2000, the Levant basin – an area encompassing the offshore territories of Israel, Palestine, Cyprus, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon – has been estimated to hold as much as 1.7 bn barrels of oil and up to 122 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas. As much of the region’s potential resources remain undiscovered, geologists believe this could be just a third of the total quantities of fossil fuels in the Levant.

    The new US Army report argues that these hydrocarbon discoveries are of “tremendous economic and geostrategic significance,” not just for its allies, but for the United States itself. Israel especially stands to “gain considerably from their newly discovered gas wealth” in terms of cost-effective energy for domestic consumption and revenues from gas exports.

    But while the discoveries offer the prospect for closer regional cooperation, they also raise “the potential for conflict over these valuable resources.” The potential for resource conflicts over oil and gas relates directly to intractable border conflicts between Israel, the Palestinians, Lebanon and Syria, as well as the unresolved Cypriot question between Greece and Turkey. US interests are to minimise the risk of conflict between its core allies, while maximising their capacity to exploit these resources.

    “Israel, Cyprus, and Turkey are key strategic US allies,” the report says. “Neighbouring Egypt, Syria and Lebanon play important roles from the European and US perspective, both as direct neighbours to Israel and the Palestinian Territories as well as because of their strategically important location as the geographic interconnection between Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.”

    The new US Army report is authored by Mohammed al-Katiri and Laura al-Katiri. Mohammed al-Katiri was previously research director at the UK Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) Advanced Research and Assessment Group (ARAG), but now heads up two private intelligence consultancies, MENA Insight and the Conflict Studies Research Centre (CSRC), both of which provide services to government and commercial sectors, including the oil and gas industry.

    The Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) which published the report, calls itself an Army “think factory” for “commanders and civilian leaders.” SSI uses independent analysis to help “develop policy recommendations” for the US Army on national security and to “influence policy debate” across the military.

    Advancing Israel’s energy empireThe SSI report on the risk of Middle East resource conflicts notes that Israel’s massive offshore gas discoveries “have yet to translate into proven gas reserves,” but that it’s total of 9.48 tcf of proven and 30 tcf estimated reserves, positions Israel “ahead of all East Mediterranean countries in terms of gas reserves and resource prospectivity.”

    The Army report also reveals that Syria could hold significant offshore oil and gas potential. In 2007, before the outbreak of hostilities, President Bashar al-Assad launched a first bidding round to secure investment into new exploration efforts, and another in 2012 that was cancelled due to deteriorating security conditions.

    “Once the Syria conflict is resolved, prospects for Syrian offshore production – provided commercial resources are found – are high,” observes the report. Potential oil and gas resources can be developed “relatively smoothly once the political situation allows for any new exploration efforts in its offshore territories.”

    The report also mentions significant gas finds in the offshore territories of Lebanon and Palestine, including the Gaza Marine, which holds over 1 tcf – production of which has been “obstruction by Israel over concerns regarding the flow of revenues to Palestinian stakeholders.” But in addition to the Gaza Marine, “Palestinian offshore territories near Gaza are believed to hold substantial hydrocarbon potential,” whose total quantities are still unknown because a lack of exploration there:

    “Both Israel and Cyprus are key US allies and pillars of US foreign policy in the region: Israel, with its long history of close political ties with the United States, historically has stood at the heart of American efforts to secure regional peace; while Cyprus forms the most eastern part of Europe and is an important strategic location for both US and British military interests.”

    Regional warThe region faces four main potential arcs of conflict. Firstly, in Israel-Palestine, the US Army study warns that “the presence of valuable natural resources in disputed territory may further feed the conflict.”

    Secondly, rival claims between Israel and Lebanon over maritime boundaries could “complicate” the development of regional offshore hydrocarbon resources and result in military confrontation.

    Thirdly, that risk has, in turn, delayed efforts to define Cypriot-Israeli and Cypriot-Lebanese exclusive economic maritime zones.

    Fourthly, in 2013 Israel granted oil exploration licenses in the Syrian-claimed Golan Heights, spelling “potential for another armed conflict between the two parties should substantial hydrocarbon resources be discovered.” According to a report to the UN Security Council in early December, Israel has been in regular contact with Syrian rebels, including Islamic State fighters, raising the question of Israel’s role in supporting anti-Assad extremists to cement its control of Golan’s potential fossil fuel resources.

    The US Army study highlights a real risk that tensions across these flashpoints could escalate into a wider regional conflict:

    “In the case of an armed conflict between Israel and Lebanon, the security of the wider Levant region could once again be at stake, with a possible escalation of the conflict into neighbouring Syria and the Palestinian Territories, as well as (with historical precedents) Jordan and Egypt. In combination, the pre-existing political problems in all of these countries – Syria destabilizing into de facto civil war, Egypt in the midst of political instability, the Palestinians and Lebanese lacking stable political cores – the potential for a new, escalating regional war is a threatening scenario indeed.”

    War for peace (for gas)To stave off this disturbing prospect, the US report recommends that Israel and other Levant gas hubs like Lebanon and Cyprus play a key role in exporting Eastern Mediterranean gas to their Arab neighbours, such as Egypt, Turkey and Jordan, given that Middle East demand for gas is projected to rise dramatically in coming decades.

    Further, the report highlights the possibility of Israel piping gas to Turkey, where it can be exported to European markets, making Turkey a regional gas transhipment hub. This would allow both Turkey and Europe to wean off their Russian gas dependence, and integrate instead into a “peaceful” US-Israeli dominated regional energy architecture.

    As has been confirmed by Quartet Middle East envoy Tony Blair’s energy advisor, Ariel Ezrahi, Gaza’s offshore gas resources are seen as a potential bridge to overcome popular Arab public opposition to gas deals with Israel. “Israeli as well as Palestinian offshore hydrocarbon resources could play a significant role in facilitating mutual trust and the willingness to cooperate,” the US Army study suggests, “including between Israel and a few of its other Arab neighbours, Jordan and Egypt.”

    But ultimately this architecture cannot be installed without extensive US intervention of some kind. “US diplomatic and military support has a pivotal role to play in the East Mediterranean’s complex geopolitical landscape, and its importance will only grow as the value of the natural resources at stake increases,” concludes the Army report:

    “US security and military support for its main allies in the case of an eruption of natural resource conflict in the East Mediterranean may prove essential in managing possible future conflict.”

    Diplomatically, the US could play a significant role in mediating between the various parties to facilitate successful oil and gas development projects across the East Mediterranean, not just for “Israel’s sake,” but also to shore-up allies like Jordan and Egypt with “low-cost Israeli gas,” contributing to regional economic and thus political stability:

    “US support – diplomatic and, where necessary, military – can form a potentially powerful element in the safeguarding of these long-term economic benefits, at little cost in relative terms.”

    If regional tensions escalate though, the report warns that “the United States also holds an important military position that could have an impact in securing the East Mediterranean,” including “military training and equipment support” to defend Cyprus and Israel from attacks on “their energy infrastructure and gas developments.”

    This Orwellian document thus reveals that in the name of maintaining regional peace, a new Great Game is at play. To counter Russian and Chinese influence while cementing influence over its Arab allies, US military strategists are contemplating the threat of war to redraw the Middle East’s energy architecture around Israel.

    By Nafeez Ahmed


    Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=349_1...ymj0rs2RdsI.99

  13. #33
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Just As The Islamic State (ISIL) Gets Exposed As A Fake US Enemy, A “Wag the Dog” Terrorist Attack in Paris?


    With information just breaking that the United States has been air dropping arms, food and medical supplies to Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) forces in Iraq, supposedly the world’s latest terrorist enemy on steroids, what has been suspected all along is now being confirmed.

    To add fuel to the fire, this news comes just as warmonger Senator McCain got busted for secretly and illegally entering Syria to meet with ISIL to coordinate strategy on that warfront.

    Clearly the ISIL is an ally to the US government in both Iraq and Syria. The command headquarters operating out of the US Embassy in Baghdad has been overseeing the US military airdrops of war supplies to our purported latest enemy in various provinces throughout Iraq. Back in October the US lied about an accidental dropping of supplies that went to the Islamic State jihadists instead of to the Kurds. The strategy in Iraq is to prolong the “war” against ISIL in order to ensure that permanent US military bases there get established, something recently deposed Iraqi President Maliki refused. It wasn’t so much Maliki’s poor leadership that spearheaded persecution and killing of so many Sunnis during his reign of terror that caused Washington to finally pull the plug on him. It was his kicking Americans out of his country entirely at the end of 2011 that brought his US orchestrated removal from power several months ago.

    Just as the US Empire created al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden back in the 80’s to finish off the Russians in Afghanistan, Now that the US government has torn the Middle East asunder into multiple war ravaged failed states, with these latest revelations coming out of Iraq, the US cover has been completely blown – ISIL turns out to be just another axis-of-evil Empire creation by the US-Israeli-Saudi governments. Based on these latest on the ground accounts filtering in through Iranian and Iraqi intelligence sources, those previous reports from months ago on how the United States was covertly financing and training this “new and improved” brand of Islamic State terrorism again created by the US turns out to be absolutely true.

    Like al Qaeda in the 1990’s Balkans, ISIL is the latest US mercenary terror on the ground fighting the US proxy war in Syria against Bashir al Assad’s forces and then seven months ago when ISIL invaded Iraq, it created the perfect excuse to deploy once again US troops on the ground in Iraq, remove former US puppet Melawi, set the stage for balkanizing Iraq into three separate entities (Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis) and fight a fake war against ISIL long enough to regain a military foothold in the country while following through with the overall longtime agenda to thoroughly destabilize the entire region.

    And then with the menace of ISIL committing ethnic cleansing of Christians and moderate Moslems in both Iraq and Syria, the US once again masterminded another thinly veiled excuse for air strikes on Syrian soil, something Obama was not allowed to do the year before with the chemical weapons false flag. Of course instead of taking out ISIL, in recent months both Israeli and US military air strikes have been destroying Syria’s infrastructure, taking out oil refineries and food storage silos that hurt the Syrian people, not the supposed enemy ISIL.

    In reaction to last September’s international spectacle of the ISIL beheadings of American and British journalists, which have been speculated to be fake, President Obama was grandstanding with his usual self-righteous acting job, pretending to be enraged and shocked by the latest US made Frankenstein monster, vowing to chase the latest declared enemy down,root them out and destroy them, wherever they may be, in both Iraq and Syria. Now we all know it was more theater, the imperial wizard behind the Empire curtain mimicking his rehearsed lines on the international stage, indignantly placating the world as a wannabe good guy. Seems that everything our commander-in-chief utters is fake, disingenuous and for show only. If in fact the US truly wanted to defeat ISIL, with technological capacity and precision as the world’s most powerful killing machine, within a month the US could easily locate and destroy ISIL forces.

    Long ago even prior to 9/11 the neocon game plan still being acted out today was to wreak havoc in the Middle East and North Africa, taking down one regime after the next, plundering oil rich lands for Exxon, Shell and BP, carving up and devising chessboard pipelines to Europe while isolating and cutting off Russia and Iran oil and gas routes, waging the blood for oil conquest for global hegemony at the murderous expense of the darker skinned human population that happens to be Moslem.

    Using terrorist mercenaries comes in handy to fight US Empire’s proxy wars where bulk deployment of more American troop invasions from a war-weary nation would not be tolerated. So 1400 US military “advisors” to coordinate the fake war against ISIL in Iraq also becomes the flimsy excuse to go after Syria after all. Taking down Assad in Syria is still the flimsy excuse to then go after Iran, the final Middle East conquest. Of course taking down Iran remains the ever so worn out excuse to also go after cold war enemy Russia [again]. This deceptive strategy and bottom line agenda masquerades as the actual US presence throughout the Middle East. Only by now the world is onto US Empire aggression. The humanitarian rhetoric of lies will no longer work as that game hand’s been played too many times before. No one will be fooled any more, not even the Americans.

    Notice how every time the US government is about to be fully exposed in another boldface lie, this one being that ISIL is our sworn enemy, another wag the dog “terrorist” incident suddenly comes along to divert world attention. This time it was three heavily armed and trained gunmen in Paris attacking the office of the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, tragically killing twelve people. Of course like the US, France is notorious for arming and funding al Qaeda terrorists. The French foreign minister just accompanied McCain to Syria in their meeting with the ISIL “enemy” there. Questions of speculation over the government’s potential involvement in another false flag are being raised.

    Not only does the attack temporarily take the heat off another sinister US foible being unraveled, it also gives strength to the war on terror, pumping up the rationale for creating yet more anti-terror laws, more totalitarian oppression in the name of national security and more anti-Moslem hatred around the globe. Though today’s attackers were French citizens, the anti-immigration and anti-Islam sentiment raging throughout the Western nations seems ready to boil over. All this of course conflict and violence is just what the oligarchs have ordered, using their age old winning formula of divide and conquer, always to blind people into hating and blaming other groups as scapegoats. The latest current events sweeping the headlines are part of the banking cabal’s design to create war, destabilize and destroy nations and economies and impoverish, kill and reduce the global population.


  14. #34
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    U.S. Won’t Admit to Killing a Single Civilian in the ISIS War

    Civilian deaths, a keystone metric of the last war in Iraq, has now become the statistic no one wants to talk about.

    Five months and 1,800-plus strikes into the U.S. air campaign against ISIS, and not a single civilian has been killed, officially. But Pentagon officials concede that they really have no way of telling for sure who has died in their attacks‚—and admit that no one will ever know how many have been slain.

    It’s impossible for us to know definitively if civilians are killed in a strike. We do everything we can to investigate. We don’t do strikes if we think civilians could be there. But we can’t have a perfect picture on what’s going on,” one Pentagon official explained to The Daily Beast.

    Stuart Jones, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told al Arabiya that U.S. and coalition strikes in Iraq and Syria have killed 6,000 ISIS fighters. That no civilians could be among that figure strikes observers and even military officials as all but impossible.

    Yet neither the Iraqi and Syrian governments nor the Congress are pushing U.S. military for answers. And with no American ground troops to assess the damage of the air campaign, human rights groups and Pentagon officials alike admit that one casualty of the war itself is an accurate breakdown of who has been killed in it.

    “If you don’t know the very basic information, for example who is dropping bombs and where, it is very hard to verify or deny claims of civilian harm,” said Marla Keenan, managing director at Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), which tracks civilian casualties.

    Civilian deaths, a keystone metric of the U.S. campaign to win hearts and minds in Iraq during the 2003-11 war, has now become the statistic no one wants to talk about. The U.S. military said earlier this month that it’s investigating claims of slain innocents. But until recently, the attitude towards so-called “collateral damage” seemed remarkably incurious, despite the Pentagon’s assertions that their strikes are so precise that they minimize civilian deaths and that they are committed to investigating suspected civilian deaths.

    “I am tracking no civilian casualties,” Lt. Gen. James L. Terry, commander of Operation Inherent Resolve, the U.S. campaign in Iraq and Syria, told reporters at a Pentagon briefing last month. “Where we—if we even suspect civilian casualties, we would immediately direct investigation, determine the cause, and then seek to understand the lessons learned from that and apply those lessons learned.”.

    U.S. Central Command, which oversees military missions in the region, is not transparent about how they conduct investigations, however. CENTCOM officials have said they are investigating two claims of civilian deaths both which occurred in late December—after Terry asserted there were no such deaths. But they have not said where those deaths may have occurred other than say one happened in Iraq and Syria, who raised concerns, precisely how many civilians may have been killed or how CENTCOM is conducting its investigation. So far, CENTCOM officials said, they usually open such cases when their own evaluation, human rights groups or media outlets make claims of civilian deaths. In all, the two cases involve less than five civilians, CENTCOM officials said.

    One reason CENTCOM can be so vague is that no one in a position of authority is asking aggressive questions about civilian casualties. In testimony on Capitol Hill about the U.S. campaign against the Islamic State, no one has pushed Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or Brett McGurk, President Obama’s deputy envoy for the coalition effort to defeat Islamic State, on the issue of civilian casualties.

    “I think the public just prefers to believe we can drop bombs and not harm anyone,” Keenan said.

    In both Iraq and Syria, the [puppet] governments themselves are believed to have killed more civilians than the U.S. strikes, making it unlikely they’d raise concerns about civilian deaths. In Iraq, the Iraqi security forces and local militias have been responsible for hundreds of deaths this year alone, according to Iraq Body Count, which has been tracking civilian casualties since the 2003 U.S. invasion. And in Syria, the regime of President Bashar al Assad is suspected behind the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians since the war began there in 2011.

    More recently Assad has piggybacked on U.S. air strikes to wage his own war against his opponents and has then blamed civilian deaths on coalition forces.

    And as of now, both Iraq and Syria are benefiting from the strikes, which is perhaps why the Iraqi government has not pressed the issue with the United States, U.S. officials told The Daily Beast. They want the U.S. campaign to continue, officials explained.

    “I don’t see the upside for the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government wants as many sorties as the coalition will fly and as many weapons as the coalition will give them. Civilian casualties are a source of friction,” Christopher Harmer, an analyst for the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington, D.C.-based research group.

    The Syrian government also wants the campaign to continue as it is benefiting from the war on ISIS, which threatens the current regime. And in all their propaganda videos, ISIS rarely brings up civilian deaths at the hands of U.S. and coalition forces. Perhaps that has something to do with all of the civilians ISIS fighters have killed themselves.[or perhaps they are created by the west]

    Allegations come from residents who can make contact with human rights groups or journalists, a far departure from the last Iraq war when U.S. troops and journalists blanketed the country. Those who claim such deaths can have an either political or financial incentive for doing so.

    The lack of credible information leads to various sides making their own claims, and a war that is having unknown effects. For example, on Dec. 28, coalition forces struck the Syrian city of al Bab, which has been the scene for strikes by both coalition and Syrian government forces targeting rebel forces and ISIS. Residents told McClatchy that coalition strikes killed 50 residents in a nearby jail. Pentagon officials said its forces never struck the jail and pinned the deaths—which, based on local reports, they believe is closer to 25 -- on Assad forces during a strike launched two days prior. No one can say for certain which claim is true, three weeks after the initial charges were made.

    That such attacks could be happening against civilians by government forces without repercussions is a failure of the nations that back them, observers said.

    “The international community supporting these governments has a responsibility to put pressure on these governments to protect their civilians,” said Sahr Muhammed, senior program manager for CIVIC with a focus on Middle East.

    International observers do keep some rough estimates about the total number of people killed and displaced in Iraq and Syria. According to the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, about 18,680 Iraqis have been slain since November 2012. (I added the numbers on the right side of the chart). In April 2014, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based group, said it had documented the death of 150,000 Syrians since the war there erupted in March 2011. [the real numbers are much higher that, syria alone tops 300k easily]

    But there’s maddeningly little information on how many of those deaths have come at the hands of the U.S.-led coalition. The only group that appears to have any breakdown of civilian deaths by coalition strikes in both countries is the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has sources and observers, but they do not release such statistics. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an opposition group, occasionally reports incidents but does not appear to have a total number. Iraq Body Count counts 118 civilian deaths by coalition air strikes.

    Either way, Muhammed explained, “we will never know the number of how many have been killed.”


  15. #35
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    ISIS Member Claims The U.S. Has Secretly Been Funding Their Operations

    The Islamic State (ISIS) commander in Pakistan has reportedly confessed to receiving funds routed through the US to recruit militants to fight in the Syrian civil war.

    An alleged ISIS member who is thought to be a Pakistani commander named Yousaf al-Salafi, has said that the terror group receives regular funding from the United States.

    Al-Salafi has confessed to the Pakistani ISI intelligence agency, that he has received funds for the terror group via U.S. funders.

    Al-Salafi was arrested in Lahore, along with two companions, on January 22, according to the news agency, the AFP.

    “During investigations, Yousaf al Salafi revealed that he was getting funding – routed through America – to run the organization in Pakistan and recruit young people to fight in Syria,” the Urdu-language Daily Express reported from a source in the ISI, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

    The news agency’s sister newspaper The Express Tribune said that he has been receiving around $600 per person he sends to Syria for training.

    “The US has been condemning the IS activities but unfortunately has not been able to stop funding of these organizations, which is being routed through the US. The US had to dispel the impression that it is financing the group for its own interests and that is why it launched offensive against the organization in Iraq but not in Syria,” the source reported.

    Still, Al-Salafi did not specify who he has been receiving funds from in the U.S., though the implications were that it was funding given via government sources.

    “Yes that is true as this issue was raised several times in the local media and even in the diplomatic corridors between US and Pakistan and there was media reporters here suggesting that hundreds of recruits have been exported to train from Pakistan,” the anonymous Pakistani intel source told the Sputnik news agency.

    Reuters reported last week that Al-Salafi’s identity is a terror leader who comes from a Pakistani-Syrian background. He came to Pakistan via Turkey only five months ago, and quickly established an ISIS cell there which has flourished and carried out attacks against Shiah Muslims.


  16. #36
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    U.S. General: “We Helped Build ISIS” – Islamic State Obtained Weapons from U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya


    During an appearance on Fox News, General Thomas McInerney acknowledged that the United States “helped build ISIS” as a result of the group obtaining weapons from the Benghazi consulate in Libya which was attacked by jihadists in September 2012.

    Asked what he thought of the idea of arming so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels after FSA militants kidnapped UN peacekeepers in the Golan Heights, McInerney said the policy had been a failure.

    “We backed I believe in some cases, some of the wrong people and not in the right part of the Free Syrian Army and that’s a little confusing to people, so I’ve always maintained….that we were backing the wrong types.”

    Then made reference to a Bret Baier Fox News special set to air on Friday which will, “show some of those weapons from Benghazi ended up in the hands of ISIS – so we helped build ISIS,” said

    In May last year, Senator Rand Paul was one of the first to speculate that the truth behind Benghazi was linked to an illicit arms smuggling program that saw weapons being trafficked to terrorists in Syria as part of the United States’ proxy war against the Assad regime.

    “I’ve actually always suspected that, although I have no evidence, that maybe we were facilitating arms leaving Libya going through Turkey into Syria,” Paul told CNN, adding that he “never….quite understood the cover-up — if it was intentional or incompetence”.

    At the same time it emerged that the U.S. State Department had hired an Al-Qaeda offshoot organization, the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, to “defend” the Benghazi Mission months before the attack.

    Senator Paul was vindicated less than three months later when it emerged that the CIA had been subjecting its operatives to monthly polygraph tests in an effort to keep a lid on details of the arms smuggling operation being leaked.

    CNN subsequently reported that dozens of CIA agents were on the ground in Benghazi during the attack and that the polygraph tests were mandated in order to prevent operatives from talking to Congress or the media about a program that revolved around “secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels.” Key Syrian rebel leaders later defected to join ISIS.

    In addition to ISIS obtaining weapons from Benghazi, many members of the group were also trained by the United States at a secret base in Jordan in 2012.

    Aaron Klein was told by Jordanian officials that, “dozens of future ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.”

    As we have previously documented, many of the United States’ biggest allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey and Qatar, have all bankrolled and armed ISIS militants.


  17. #37
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    ‘US, Israel, created ISIL to spread Islamophobia’: Journalist


    The creation of the ISIL terrorist group was part of a “false flag operation” by the United States and Israel to spread “Islamophobia” against Muslims, a journalist says.

    “The US and Israel have been involved in the whole creation of the ISIS/ISIL myth trying to lay the blame on the Muslim nations,” said Arthur Topham from Cottonwood, British Columbia.

    “As far as I can see, it’s another false flag attempt to build up more Islamophobic hatred towards all the Arab states in the Middle East,” Topham told Press TV during a phone interview on Thursday.

    The US and Israel are using scapegoats like Osama bin Laden to connect terrorism to people in the Middle East in order to “justify all sorts of violent actions against various nations” in the region, he said.

    The rise of ISIL in Iraq and Syria is another example of “fraudulent efforts to attack the Muslim nations,” Topham noted.

    According to a report by a leading Pakistani newspaper, an ISIL leader has confessed to getting funds via the United States.

    The ISIL operative, identified as Yousaf al-Salafi, told Pakistan’s law enforcement agencies that he received funding through the US, The Express Tribune reported on Wednesday.

    Salafi, a Pakistani Syrian, was taken into custody in December 2014, according to the paper, although other reports say he was arrested on January 22.

    The ISIL terrorists, who were initially trained by the CIA in Jordan in 2012 to destabilize the Syrian government, are engaged in crimes against humanity in the areas under their control.

    They have been carrying out horrific acts of violence such as public decapitations and crucifixions against all communities, including Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, and Christians.


  18. #38
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Iraqis Believe ISIL is CIA Made


    CAIRO – As the US rallies its allies to launch an all-out war on the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), conspiracy theories are running deep in Iraq, with Iraqis believing that the militant group is an invention of the CIA to allow the US interference in the area.
    “The Islamic State is a clear creation of the United States,” Haidar al-Assadi, 40-year-old Iraqi Shiite, told New York Times on Sunday, September 21.
    “The United States is trying to intervene again using the excuse of the Islamic State,” he added.

    The opinion expressed by al-Assadi was shared by a large number of Iraqis, stretching from the highest offices in the Iraqi government to the streets of Baghdad."We know about who made Daesh [Islamic State in Arabic]," said Bahaa al-Araji, a deputy prime minister in the newly formed Iraqi government at a protest rally organized by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr to oppose the possible deployment of American ground troops in Iraq.Al-Araji’s opinion was shared by most of the few thousand people at the demonstration, including dozens of members of Parliament.Sadr has previously blamed the CIA for creating the Islamic State in a speech last week.The deep-rooted conspiracy theory underscored the deep suspicions of the American military’s return to Iraq more than a decade after its invasion, in 2003.

    Saturday’s rally followed several warnings from Shiite leaders of militias, considered close to Iran, to the US not to put its soldiers back on the ground.Earlier in September, President Barack Obama declared that he has authorized US airstrikes for the first time in Syria and more attacks in Iraq.He ordered an additional 475 U. service members to assist the beleaguered Iraqi and Kurdish forces and asked Congress to move quickly to approve hundreds of millions of dollars to increase funding for training and equipping Syrian fighters.Though Obama pledged not to send combat troops, few Iraqis seemed to believe him.“We don’t trust him,” said Raad Hatem, 40.Gov’t FailureRejecting the deployment of American troops, Iraqis answered the call from Shiite religious leaders to defend Iraq from the Islamic State without foreign help.“This is how we do it,” al-Assadi said, adding that the same forces would keep American troops out.“The main reason Obama is saying he will not invade again is because he knows the Islamic resistance” of the Shiite militias “and he does not want to lose a single soldier.”Iraqis have also vented anger on the Shiite-dominated government of the former prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, for failing to build a more dependable army.“We had a good army, so where is this army now?” asked Waleed al-Hasnawi, a Shiite, 35.“Maliki gave them everything, but they just left the battlefield.”Omar al-Jabouri, 31, a Sunni Muslim from a predominantly Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad who attended the rally and said he volunteers with a Shiite brigade, argued that Maliki had alienated most Iraqis, regardless of their sect.“He did not just exclude and marginalize the Sunni people; he ignored the Shiite people, too,” Mr. Jabouri said.“He gave special help to his family, his friends, people close to him. He did not really help the Shiite people, as many people think.”But the Islamic State was a different story, Jabouri said. “It is obvious to everyone that the Islamic State is a creation of the United States and Israel.”Last August, the BBC reported another conspiracy theory that cited Snowden documents claimed that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, was trained by Mossad and the CIA.The widely shared hoax even went on to claim that his real name was not Ibrahim Awwad Ibrahim Ali al-Badri al-Samarrai but Simon Elliot.


  19. #39
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    Three things we have learnt about ISIS after Moaz al Kasasbeh’s execution


    After the execution video of a Jordanian pilot being burned alive, we have learnt three things about ISIS, writes Bilal Abdul Kareem.

    On Tuesday, ISIS released a video of Jordanian pilot Lieutenant Moaz al Kasasbeh who they captured last December being burnt alive. He was locked inside a steel cage wearing an orange jumpsuit that had been drenched with flammable liquid and burned alive.

    Lt Kasasbeh angered many Muslims around the world when his country Jordan decided to participate in a US-led coalition to bomb ISIS positions, while totally abandoning the Bashar al-Assad regime that has killed more than 200,000 innocent men, women, and children.

    ISIS demanded the release of failed suicide bomber Sajida al-Rishawi who was convicted in connection to a 2005 terrorist attack in Jordan in exchange for Japanese journalist Kenji Goto. Jordanian authorities offered to release Rishawi in exchange for Kasasbeh. However, negotiations broke down, and in retaliation, Jordanian authorities executed Rishawi yesterday morning.

    Now that we’ve refreshed our minds with what’s happened, let’s see what we have learned from these recent events.

    ISIS are ignorant of the Sunnah

    Abu Dawud dedicated a chapter in his Sunan entitled, “The Detestable Nature of Burning the Opposing Forces with Fire”. Below are a few relevant hadith.

    #2673. It was reported from Muhammad bin Hamzah Al-Aslami from his father, that the Messenger of Allah appointed him as a commander over a military expedition. He said: “So I went along with them, and he (the Prophet) said: ‘If you find so-and-so, then burn him with fire.’ Then I turned to depart. He called me to come back, so I came back to him. He said: ‘If you find so-and-so, then kill him, and do not burn him, for nobody punishes with fire except the Lord of the Fire.”

    #2675. It was reported from ‘Abdur-Rahman bin ‘Abdullah, from his father who said: “We were with the Messenger of Allah in a journey. He went to relieve himself. We saw a Humrah with two chicks of hers, and we took one of her chicks The Humrah came and started shaking her spread out wings. The Prophet came and said: ‘Who distressed her because of her chicks, give her chick back to her. And he also saw an ant colony which we had burnt, so he said: ‘Who burnt this down?’ We said: ‘We did.’ He said: ‘It is not allowed to punish with fire, except for the Lord of the Fire.”

    Both of the above mentioned hadith were classified by Shaykh Al Albani as authentic in his checking and review of the book.

    In Silsilat al-Ahadith as-Saheehah (#487), he adds a discussion of the authentic narration of when Ali (ra) ordered some people to face the death penalty by fire. When news of this reached Ibn ‘Abbas (ra), he disapproved of the decision and relayed a hadith of the Prophet (saw) with a similar wording: “Do not punish with the punishment of Allah!” (Sahih Bukhari #3017).

    Imam at-Tirmidhi also collected it in his Jaami’ (#1458), adding that when this comment got back to Ali, he said, “Ibn ‘Abbas has spoken correctly.”

    The ruling on this issue is very clear. The Messenger of Allah (saw) did not even accept ants to be killed in this way. How much more so a human being? Perhaps, it is a case that ISIS members and leadership are so ignorant of the Sunnah that they weren’t aware of these ahadith. In which case, they should be declared too Islamically ignorant to be carrying out the actions they are undertaking. Worst case scenario, they are fully aware of these ahadith and don’t care. If there is a third option, I’d like to know what it is because I do not see what else it could be. I am honestly stuck to find how even the most hardcore ISIS supporter can explain this action.

    Thirst for blood takes precedence

    By demanding the release of Sajida al-Rishawi they placed a spotlight on her. Surely they must have known that in doing so, they would have potentially exposed her to a reprisal should negotiations fail. ISIS has maintained that the blood of one Muslim is worth the blood of a thousand non-Muslims, or so they have said on numerous occasions. According to their logic, ISIS considered Lt Kasasbeh to have apostated from Islam. Why not make the exchange then if they truly placed such a high value on Sajida Rishawi’s life? Or perhaps the group is more bloodthirsty than serious about the very statements they make?

    Sajida Rishawi was on death row since 2005 and yet her sentence was not carried out. Now through ISIS’ actions, a sentence that had not been carried out for more than nine years was expedited in a matter of hours. Those who support ISIS, how can you defend the handling of this affair? They had to have known that Rishawi would have been killed should they kill Lt Kasasbeh. Did they consider that displaying to the world the burning of this pilot was worth the life of Rishawi? This seems to defy their logic, or is there another perspective?

    Who is benefitting from ISIS?

    ISIS has succeeded in uniting the world’s powers not just against them, but against Muslims in general. At best we could say they are horrible tacticians, at worst we could say that they have done it purposely. It is difficult to imagine how anyone could support a group that displayed the burning of this pilot knowing full well the clear Islamic ruling regarding burning. Unless, that was their objective all along: to turn popular opinion against any just and legal Islamic struggle. They must have known that popular opinion would not discriminate against ISIS or other Islamic groups, thereby hurting every Islamic cause around the world.

    Message to ISIS Members and their supporters

    ISIS members and supporters, you must listen to reason, Islamic reason. You made a mistake in supporting the unknown Abu Bakr Baghdadi and his group. It is not the end of the world to recognise your mistake. As we read in the hadith mentioned above, Ali (ra) made a mistake and freely admitted it instead of trying to defend it or explain why. The worst mistake is to compound the original one and try to justify and explain away clear violations of the Quran and Sunnah.

    Abandoning ISIS doesn’t mean abandoning Islam or the desire that Muslims around the world share, which is to see a just and fair Caliphate. So it is now up to you to decide. What will you do now? Accuse the Ummah of being against you because you are “on the truth” and they are not? Spit another takfir laced diatribe about how Muslims really don’t want Islam and only you do? Truly this is a time to see who supports Islam and who merely supports Baghdadi.


  20. #40
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    UN Finds Credible Ties Between ISIS And Israeli Defense Forces

    “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia!”

    So goes the famous line from George Orwell’s novel 1984. And so, too, can our forces today claim over a number of groups we find in the Middle East. In many ways, the enemy of my enemy is my friend when dealing with the Middle East, and in the battle between ancient tribal groups, when you lack an enemy, sometimes you need to make one.

    In a new report from the UN, it is revealed that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) were maintaining regular contact with members of the so-called Islamic State since May of 2013. Initial reports from the IDF stated that this was only for medical care for civilians, but that story fell apart when the UN observers identified direct contact between IDF forces and ISIS soldiers, including giving medical care to ISIS fighters. Observations even included the transfer of two crates from the IDF to ISIS forces, the contents of which have not been confirmed at this time. Further the UN report identified what the Syrians label a crossing point of forces between Israel and ISIS, a point of concern brought before the UN Security Council. This report from the UN strengthens the claims by the Syrian regime that Israel is heavily involved in operations within the nation.

    This is part of a continuing pattern of Israeli support for the Islamic State. It was only two months ago that Israel attacked Syrian forces in opposition to ISIS forces. Israeli attacks even killed an Iranian military adviser for the Syrian military just two weeks ago. The U.S.’s financing of ISIS, part of the effort against Syrian president Assad, is well documented, as well. That the efforts to undermine the Assad regime were in turn strengthening the same terrorist group which recently set a Jordanian pilot on fire to set an example is conveniently ignored by the higher up military command.

    When the United States began operations against ISIS, Israeli high command seemed reluctant to give any support and called the move a mistake. The support of ISIS fits in with Israeli concerns in the region, namely that of Syria and Iran, and U.S. opposition to ISIS has put the United States in the awkward position of once again arming the enemies we will be fighting tomorrow.

    Syria and Iran both pose a threat to Israel with their sizable conventional forces and political clout in the region, in much the same way Iraq was before the elimination of Saddam Hussein. With the toppling of Saddam, pieces of concern remain, and Israel appears to still maintain the old axiom that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    Supporting ISIS for Israel enables them to eliminate two issues at once, only once Syria is no longer a concern — a move which would in turn neutralize Iranian influence in the region — Israel then would turn its attention to ISIS, bolstered by other anti-ISIS forces from Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United States. That would take several more years, however, during which time ISIS would continue to grow in both size and power. By the time they turn their attention to ISIS, it is quite possible that ISIS would have toppled the nations which Israel is counting on for support of such an operation. Too little, too late.

    Traditionally such groups as ISIS have relied upon Saudi Arabia for support, but Saudi money is conspicuously absent from ISIS coffers. Unlike groups before, ISIS has gone self-financed, relying upon prostitution, slavery and oil for its financial well-being. This, in turn, removes the protections which Saudi Arabia has relied upon for almost a century to prevent such organizations from turning on the House of Saud and potentially conquering the kingdom which is now in the sights of the Islamic State.

    In turn, the ISIS forces have all but forced the Kurds to become a mighty force unto themselves, much to the anger of neighboring Turkey. Rather than helping to fight ISIS, Turkey is instead attacking the forces standing in opposition to ISIS. The entire situation has spiraled out of control.

    In effect, there is no side to support here, as each side is being supported at once in opposition to the other side. By enabling the creation of ISIS, we have taken an already unstable situation and poured gasoline over it. Now we are facing a true threat, not from ISIS or Iran or Syria, but against our own arrogance. We have been blinded to the death and destruction created by our actions in the Middle East.

    We once were respected throughout the region, as neutral peacebrokers, the nation which oversaw the breakup of the Barbary pirates and a country which became eternal friends with the people of Iran when all of Europe ignored them. Now we are Israel’s expected muscle, to carry out their dirty work in an effort to destabilize the region and de-power those the tiny nation views as a threat. They will support anyone, if it meets a short-term goal, even if the result is a plot more complex and ridiculous than an episode of “Passions. This can, and will cost them long-term.

    The United States cannot be party to this. Whatever the political and economic cost, the U.S. must disengage from all sides in the Middle East, before it is too late.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts