ISIS and the wars in Syria and Iraq

Politics and religion.

Moderator: JasonNC


Snarky!
Posts: 13692
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:01 pm
PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:15 am
What are you talking about? Hey, did you hear that Obama got barbecue in Texas? He's just a regular guy!
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:24 am
Oops

“Going After” the Islamic State. Guess Who is Behind the Caliphate Project?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/going-afte ... te/5401439

It just keeps chugging along, this giant steaming lie

Remember those frightened Gulf States -- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the other disgusting dictatorships bankrolled by a global need for oil? Remember how the West saved them from Iraqi conquest back in 1990-91? The invasion that stupid Saddam was lured in to launching?

Well, with help from the USA, UK, Turkey, and Israel, the big money Gulf States were kind enough to create and apparently still steer ISIS or ISIL or IS or whatever it is today in 2014. It's the new Al Qaeda. It's the new reason to be wery, wery afraid. The new reason for bombs and boots on the ground. They're in Mexico. They're almost taking Baghdad. They're almost taking Saudi Arabia. They'll getcha in Europe. They have a dirty bomb maybe in a major US city. They have nifty high budg beheading videos!

And it's so manufactured that half a dozen mainstream newspapers have hinted that the whole ISIS thing is a contrived production.

IS or ISIL or whatever could be wiped out in a real operation lasting 48 hrs. The US military could do it lickety split, except that's exactly what the US leadership doesn't want. They want a long illusory, BS war.

I actually hope the Russians and Iraqis team up to get it done and foil the Western elite's plans.
Quote
User avatar
Woah! Double lightsaber! Double lightsaber all the way!
Posts: 6286
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:42 pm
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:27 am
Dorm wrote:And it's so manufactured that half a dozen mainstream newspapers have hinted that the whole ISIS thing is a contrived production.


Which six mainstream newspapers?

Also, what I don't get is, if Obama is so intent on having the people believe there's a big bad terrorist threat to fight, why did he spend so much time and energy denying that there was any more terrorist threat after Bin Laden was killed? Why did he deny the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack and try to tie it to riots over a Youtube video when all evidence was to the contrary? Why did the language change from "terrorist attack" to "manmade disaster?"
Image
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:20 pm
Quick google sample

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ira ... 33396.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/ ... taged.html

http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/officials-u- ... in-jordan/
http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/saudis-armin ... qi-cities/
http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/source-besie ... ccomplice/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ap-us-train ... in-jordan/

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27844749

http://rt.com/op-edge/168064-isis-terro ... a-cia-war/

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 56551.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ ... FI20130310

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... s-ago.html

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... Ambassador

There's a lot more too. Basically, all of these news sites are playing pretend, say ISIS is very aggressive and evil, bla, bla. They have to play that game. The papers will never connect the dots and just flat out say, ISIS is a manufactured contrivance, and we need to investigate immediately. Instead, they have to bring up words like blow-back and 'mistake' and so forth, and let the readers brew on it. However, the combined information they present is obviously damning. It goes like this, with some giant hints:

1. ISIS was created by the West via its many Middle East proxies: Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, etc. Even in late 2013 and early 2014, the process was still in full swing.
2. A big chunk of the funding came from the Gulf Sheiks, the bank-rollers and strong allies of the US and UK. Without this funding: no ISIS. The bulk of ISIS are foreign mercenaries, mainly NATO-Saudi sponsored, who want MONEY.
3. Speaking, oil and money, various NATO countries are buying oil right from ISIS in Iraq. NATO country Turkey is facilitating this $3 million/day industry.
4. Now comes the training. The US, UK, French, and Turks are the main military trainers (all NATO). They also train Al Nusra, the supposed Al Qaeda group fighting Syria.
5. Armaments. From the West, coming partially from the Libyan NATO op ratlines. A lot of other US arms come right from the Iraqi army... all abandoned toys.

6. The Leader of ISIS? Released from Gitmo and sent on home to start up the terror empire.
7. Beheading videos: several newspapers mentioned they look fake.

8. A very important detail: The mysterious collapse of the Iraqi army, which allowed ISIS to suddenly take the north of Iraq, with all its oil, and accumulate vast amounts of American arms. They went from nearly nothing to everything, without a shot fired.

Here the mainstream media tries hard to obfuscate the obvious, and not hint of collusion. But they fail.

There were 30,000 government forces in Mosul as opposed to 1000 ISIS rebels, according to reports. The Iraqi army chose not to intervene. The media reports explained without evidence that the decision of the Iraqi armed forces not to intervene was spontaneous characterized by mass defections.

Iraqi officials told the Guardian that two divisions of Iraqi soldiers – roughly 30,000 men – simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an insurgent force of just 800 fighters. Isis extremists roamed freely on Wednesday through the streets of Mosul, openly surprised at the ease with which they took Iraq’s second largest city after three days of sporadic fighting. (Guardian, June 12, 2014, emphasis added)

The reports point to the fact that Iraqi military commanders were sympathetic with the Sunni led ISIS insurgency intimating that they are largely Sunni:

Speaking from the Kurdish city of Erbil, the defectors accused their officers of cowardice and betrayal, saying generals in Mosul “handed over” the city over to Sunni insurgents, with whom they shared sectarian and historical ties. (Daily Telegraph, 13 June 2014)

The report is misleading. The senior commanders were largely hardline Shiite. The defections occurred de facto when the command structure collapsed and senior (Shiite) military commanders left the city.


In this regard, the capture of Mosul appears to have been a carefully engineered operation, planned well in advance. With the exception of a few skirmishes, no fighting took place.

Entire divisions of the Iraqi National Army –trained by the US military with advanced weapons systems at their disposal– could have easily repelled the ISIS rebels. Reports suggest that they were ordered by their commanders not to intervene. According to witnesses, “Not a single shot was fired”.


The commanders in the Iraqi army simply left. 800 to 1000 auxiliary fighters cannot menace 30,000 soldiers with superior weapons and vehicles. The Iraqi commanders were either ordered to leave, or they were bribed. The empire of ISIS was manufactured by backroom deals... under the supervision of nation-states.

Image
Caucasus-Georgian ISIS commander pretending to be grassroots Arab, no doubt CIA trained, Saudi-paid... inspecting all his new stolen US equipment that the USGov made sure he could drive away with.
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 9:32 pm
Darth Board wrote:Also, what I don't get is, if Obama is so intent on having the people believe there's a big bad terrorist threat to fight, why did he spend so much time and energy denying that there was any more terrorist threat after Bin Laden was killed? Why did he deny the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack and try to tie it to riots over a Youtube video when all evidence was to the contrary? Why did the language change from "terrorist attack" to "manmade disaster?"


Benghazi was, among other things, an intelligence op to move NATO-controlled Salafist Libyan terrorists and arms to the Near East, where they would be illegally used against the government of Syria. The covert chiefs apparently did not want critical attention aimed at the important nature of the op, so they got the politicians and media to throw up a bunch of smoke. Beyond that, the facts are very unclear. Who knows? A lot of analysts, left and right, say the ambassador maybe blew the whistle in his investigation and he was assassinated by Arab goons in an operation. There certainly was a stand-down and no effort was made to protect him or the secret installation, all against protocol.

The bin Laden and Al Qaeda psy-ops were shelved. The skeptical public, the ones paying attention, could only take so much bull, and it was all getting too silly. Time to change the game.

Time for new missions. New brands. Now we have ISIS, another made-in-the-USA covert joke which could have been destroyed immediately but instead was protected and nurtured. The West always needs enemies -- enemies whom they tend to create.

EDIT: As I keep saying, Obama is mostly a figurehead. His handlers come up to him and say, We have a change in the scripts. Pentagon is on our ass. New strategic policies are opening up and we need some BS from you to explain the new plot changes to the low IQs out there. So read your speech, b1tch, and make it sound convincing. Then you can get back to the golf course.
Quote
User avatar
Woah! Double lightsaber! Double lightsaber all the way!
Posts: 6286
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:42 pm
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:51 pm
Dorm, I'm not trying to dog you here, but you're just reading things in a way that fits your already-established beliefs. I ask for the "half a dozen mainstream newspapers" that "have hinted that the whole ISIS thing is a contrived production." Instead you give me a bunch of news sources that are either: 1) not mainstream at all (at least half of them), 2) are op-ed pieces, or 3) are actual respected news stories repeating the same story as other outlets via major outlets like Reuters, which is just reporting the contentions of a third party (and the counter-contentions of officials) in a "he said/he said" fashion. Out of all of these, I have read two that actually come close to hinting "that the whole ISIS thing is a contrived production." Both were op-eds. Neither was from a particularly "mainstream" source.

It doesn't necessitate that you're wrong in your assertions, but the fact that you infer something from a selected viewing of news stories does not rise to the level of any one of them "hinting" at something. A hint in a newspaper tends to be a pretty blatant thing. It usually involves the article saying something has been asserted by a credible source and not offering any counter to it. Certainly a newspaper is not hinting at anything in an op-ed, because it not sanctioning the voice, merely giving it a stage, and newspapers regularly post op-eds that disagree with one another. And of course, we are all well aware that any news story that is offered against your assertions will be explained away as part of the propaganda machine that hides the truth. We've seen this very clearly with the articles questioning the Foley beheading video, none of which actually questioned if Foley actually had been beheaded, only the veracity of the beheading depicted in the video. In fact they all went out of their way to point out that there was no reasonable doubt that Foley had been beheaded. You accepted their testimony on the faking of the video but explained away the same sources' testimony on whether or not beheadings had even taken place.

As for Obama being a figurehead, that still doesn't explain why the same people (his handlers, if you prefer) would work so hard to make clear that there was no terrorist threat only to come back and try to manufacture a new one. Or was Obama's change in language to "man-made disaster" just him going off script? Either way, it works out to more of the "eat the fish but spit out the bones" view of accepting enough of the facts that support the theory and blowing off the ones that cause you trouble.

If you want to convince the truly open-minded and informed, you're going to have to come up with better evidence. Or maybe, you could just be convinced yourself by the evidence that is at hand, no matter where it takes you, rather than try to fit it into your theories. I'm not trying to be difficult, Dorm. I just want better evidence.
Image
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:19 am
Darth, the news cited and a truck-load more paints a fairly damning picture. Obviously the news is not 'allowed' to say: This really stinks bad and we strongly believe the whole thing is manufactured. Everyone should get a pitch-fork. They are allowed to list certain controversial bits of info and hope they aren't censored, but they are forbidden from unifying the picture. That's up to the readers. Also, op-eds are fantastic ways for newspapers to get a msg across, but duck any responsibility. An intolerable op-ed with no facts is rarely published, especially regarding national security.

I think you have avoided the information and tried to peg me into a 'theorist' not working from any scraps of information. If you are among "the truly open-minded and informed" I'm failing to convince, please correct me as to what is really happening.

You can start by refuting the 8 pieces of information I listed, instead of putting up a wall of abstract. I wouldn't rely on hatchet defense pieces from the BBC or Time either. The 'mainstream news' is NOT really the be-all-end-all, since it's obviously compromised. It assists as well as obfuscates. I'd also like you to explain why half of those news articles don't come from mainstream organizations. The only one debatable is RT, and the article is by a famous academic.

I just mentioned that the situation is so bad that the mainstream news is really in a pickle, and has to admit there's really controversial, manufactured things happening. They can't deny it all. They have to explore some of this nonsense and expose some controversies lest they lose whatever credibility they still hold on to.


Anyway, follow the money, the weapons, the stand-downs. The answers are there, and I didn't "theorize" them. Of course ISIS is successful. They've been manufactured by a network of the most powerful and wealthy national forces on Earth.
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:13 pm
Even more I saw recently

US-Backed 'Moderate' Free Syrian Army Factions Join ISIS Terror Group
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014 ... rror-Group

This is the same Free Syrian Army that is sponsored by the CIA:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... story.html

This the same FSA that has signed a non-aggression treaty with ISIS mere days ago:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/1 ... 14128.html
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:30 pm
Woops

During his testimony in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, America’s top military official General Martin E. Dempsey admitted that the United States’ Arab allies in the middle east are funding ISIS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA39iVSo7XE

Dempsey is being questioned by limp-wristed war-hawk Republican Senator Lindsay Graham. Graham is one of the many front-men of The War Party, a lawyer who always argues for stupid intervention everywhere, anytime. Dempsey quietly put a bullet hole in Graham's arguments, and spilled the beans. I don't know about Dempsey, though what little I've read about him in the past is that he's somewhat moderate compared to others around him.
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:08 pm
This has to be one of the most ridiculous foreign policy operations in modern history. It's genuinely funny if you like black comedy.

Image
Smile for the camera. Such scary costumes and just in time for Halloween, back in America

House approves Obama’s Iraq-Syria military strategy amid skepticism
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

Republicans are leading the charge in support of Obama's 'strategy' of fighting Syria's Assad and the nebulous entity known as ISIL, ISIS, IS, whatever. The plan involves pouring even more money, arms, and training to "moderate, secular" Syrian rebel organizations.

There's a big public relations problem, though. Most honest analysts paying attention have discovered that few if any "moderate" rebels remain. They're all Islamist Al-Qaeda friendly ISIL mercenaries.

1. The Al Nusra Front has allied with ISIL.
2. What's left of the once formidable Free Syrian Army group has allied with ISIL.
3. The Muslim Brotherhood is sucked in with the FSA into ISIL.
4. Jund al-Sham: Islamic nuts fighting alongside Al Nusra
5. Islamic Front: coalition of 7 groups, Islamic nuts, Saudi-led.
6. Al-Tawhid Brigade: merged with the above group. Nutcases. Qatari-led.
7. Caucasus Emirate: extremely nasty Chechen mercenaries allied with Al Nusra.
8. Ansar al-Deen Front: Saudi, Chechen, and Moroccan nutcases.
9. Ansar al-Islam: these Sharia law Al Qaeda guys just merged with ISIL.
10. Junud al-Sham: more Chechen mercs.

The list goes on and on. There's like a dozen smaller groups too. Some are former Baathist members of Saddam Hussein's inner circle; very ruthless and corrupt. All of these groups are now flush with American arms. Artillery. Humvees. TOW missiles.

The stupid thing is, no one is even sure if there is a real ISIL, ISIS, or IS. It's just some guys in black who showed up one day, after the CIA and Pentagon began intensifying their operations. I'm sure after all the bribes that took place, ISIL rapidly started to expand.

“My sense is that there are no seculars,” said Elizabeth O’Bagy, of the Institute for the Study of War, who has made numerous trips to Syria in recent months to interview rebel commanders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/world ... wanted=all

Get out of town! No seculars and moderates, and that was somewhat well known in 2013?

Okay, okay. So it's all big mistake. All blow-back. The gigantic foreign policy and covert apparatus of the USA and Britain and other NATO countries failed. Again. They made a big mistake again, despite their massive understanding of the situation. We just supplied the wrong guys and they turned on us. Again. So let's stop doing that, right? Start all over.

No? We'll keep giving the Syrian rebels arms and new money? Ahh, okay. We'll look the other way as the Gulf State money keeps coming in? and the scary men keep stealing all those US arms?

Hilarious.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
Quote
PreviousNext

Return to It matters!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron