This is ISIS. This is the truth: Exposing the bull# on ATS

I see so much bull# on ATS, regarding ISIS and its origins. This thread exists for the sole purpose of providing members the truth regarding ISIS and its origins. So please, i urge everyone to read on.

People claim that ISIS exists because the US made it so. People claim that ISIS was created in Syria, during its civil war. People claim that the USA and UK directly and knowingly funded extreme Islamic groups in Syria. People claim that there are no moderate rebels in Syria, and that the US has been funding ISIS all along. Well guess what? All of this is bull# of the highest order. There is no evidence, nothing, to suggest that the USA directly established ISIS.

Here's the truth:

ISIS was established by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in early 2004, as a result of the coalition invasion of Iraq. It initially operated under the name of Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād, before swearing its allegiance to Al Qaeda in October of the same year, and calling itself Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn. You knew this organisation as 'Al Qaeda in Iraq'; they then knew themselves as 'The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers'.

In 2006, 'The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers' merged with smaller Iraqi jihadist groups, and proceed to name the coalition as the Mujahideen Shura Council'. It had little success, and after the death of founder al-Zarqawi, disbanded in October of the same year. The group to replace the Mujahideen Shura Council just so happened to be a group named the Islamic State of Iraq, or ISI. Abu Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi and Abu Ayyub al-Masri became the new leaders of ISI, with other jihadist groups in Iraq opposing the establishment of the organisation itself.

Abu Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi and Abu Ayyub al-Masri ruled ISIS for a number of years, until they were both assassinated in a joint US/Iraqi operation on 18 April 2010. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi then became the new leader of ISI, and until 2011, remained somewhat silent.

During the Syrian civil war, ISI expanded its operations into the country, and established Jabhat al-Nusra in 2012. Jabhat al-Nusra was intended to be ISI's official branch in Syria, with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi stating that ISI and Jabhat al-Nusra would merge to become the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. The proclaimed merge was refused by the leader of Jabhat al-Nusra, Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of Al Qaeda, came to Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani's defence, and ruled against the proposed merge. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi refused the ruling, and insisted that ISIS would merge with jabhat al-Nusra. Al Qaeda ordered ISIS to disband, and after an intense power struggle, broke all relations with the outfit.

ISIS then expanded into Syria, where it found success in taking strategically important cities such as Raqqa, before expanding its actions into Iraq. After finding some success in Iraq, ISIS changed its name to the 'Islamic State', and declared a caliphate on June 29 2014.

---

The above is a general run down on ISIS and its history. As can be seen, ISIS was not formed in Syria, by the USA. Indeed, the USA considers ISIS a terrorist organisation, and actually listed it as such in 2004, the year of its birth. For an organisation opposed to the allied invasion of Iraq, it would seem illogical for the USA to support such a group. This is doubly so now, considering the fact that ISIS is directly threatening the stability of Iraq. This leads on to the next point, the debate as to whether or not the USA has supported ISIS in Syria.

Many argue that ISIS has been directly supported by the USA in Syria. This claim is untruthful, as the USA has intended to only fund moderate rebels, of whom are a separate entity to their Islamist counterparts. Indeed, the USA has trained and financially supported members of the FSA, and yes, it is true that many have defected to ISIS. But it is simply wrong to suggest that ISIS itself, has received any such treatment from the West. It is also incorrect to conclude that ISIS has somehow been supported by the US, simply because it now controls the Eastern region of Syria - an area recently controlled by both, the Syrian government and moderate opposition. The USA has only supported appropriately vetted rebels, and while some have defected to ISIS, it should be noted that jihadists are not considered appropriate contenders for support.

So why then, are we having to deal with this misinformation? Why am i having to sit hear at the dead of night, authoring this piece to inform others of the truth surrounding the Islamist group that is ISIS? I feel it is due to an ignorance around these groups, and towards the USA in general. I know this thread has not touched on all of the bases, as it would take multiple books to even achieve such a feat. That said, i do hope that this thread has spurred at least one person to go further and conduct their own research into the overall situation.

In conclusion, here are some sources for members here to get started on their research:

ISIS:

en.wikipedia.org...
www.bbc.com...

ISIS leaders:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Syrian civil war:

en.wikipedia.org...

Terrorist organisation list:

www.state.gov...

Here's a thread i authored some time ago, pointing out some of the forces fighting in Syria. It may help in gaining a greater understanding of the variety of organisations in the state, but please be aware that the thread itself is quite dated and not all encompassing. There are obviously further organisations inside the state:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyway, i thank everyone for reading.

- Daas.




IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

a reply to: daaskapital

Posting verifiable supportive facts will not be tolerated!

Having said that, I don't know how one could deny the US/West rube goldberg approach which in the end did in fact help create our present cluster @#%$&.

a reply to: SLAYER69

There is no doubt that Western actions have contributed to the overall mess that is the Middle-East. I do not deny that, but i think it is wrong for people to state that the USA was directly responsible for the establishment of ISIS and other extreme Jihadist groups in the region.

The allegations are illogical, and have no legitimate evidence to support their foundations. Of course, i would welcome any solid evidence, but i am yet to see it.

Thanks for commenting.

a reply to: daaskapital

A well intended Thread Daas! Informative, for those of us who have been somewhat in the dark as the the origins of said group! Thanx for taking the time to write this up! Later, Syx.

So they swore allegiance to Al Qaeda who are funded by the USA and we can't blame the USA for funding ISIS?

originally posted by: SyxPak
a reply to: daaskapital

A well intended Thread Daas! Informative, for those of us who have been somewhat in the dark as the the origins of said group! Thanx for taking the time to write this up! Later, Syx.

Thanks, SyxPak . It was my pleasure.

originally posted by: CallYourBluff
So they swore allegiance to Al Qaeda who are funded by the USA and we can't blame the USA for funding ISIS?

Do you have evidence?

originally posted by: daaskapital
a reply to: SLAYER69

There is no doubt that Western actions have contributed to the overall mess that is the Middle-East. I do not deny that, but i think it is wrong for people to state that the USA was directly responsible for the establishment of ISIS and other extreme Jihadist groups in the region.

The allegations are illogical, and have no legitimate evidence to support their foundations. Of course, i would welcome any solid evidence, but i am yet to see it.

Thanks for commenting.

Although there official origins is certainly convoluted and the straight forward history rundown is appreciated, there is however, a difference between officially supporting a policy or decision and unofficially doing so. In fact, and quite often they prefer to do both symotaeneously simply because it is beneficial. That shouldn't be so easily overlooked.

a reply to: daaskapital

Thank you for bringing some "light" in this misinformations.

Before I read your thread,I somehow blamed USA for supporting ISIS,but I had big doubts on that. Even now,I don't see the logic debated in some other threads :US secretly supports ISIS in order to get money from other nations in that area to help them fight that big terrorist group.

I think that Russia should leave Ukrayne alone and to come and fight against this islamic group.It is a bigger threat that can involve innocent nations who doesn't have any connection with this middle-east war.

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: CallYourBluff
So they swore allegiance to Al Qaeda who are funded by the USA and we can't blame the USA for funding ISIS?

Do you have evidence?

Yes my Youtube/wikipedia research, haha. No not really, I'd say it's impossible to have evidence of anything going on over there. To much misinformation.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: daaskapital
a reply to: SLAYER69

There is no doubt that Western actions have contributed to the overall mess that is the Middle-East. I do not deny that, but i think it is wrong for people to state that the USA was directly responsible for the establishment of ISIS and other extreme Jihadist groups in the region.

The allegations are illogical, and have no legitimate evidence to support their foundations. Of course, i would welcome any solid evidence, but i am yet to see it.

Thanks for commenting.

Although there official origins is certainly convoluted and the straight forward history rundown is appreciated. However, there is a difference between officially supporting a policy or decision and unofficially doing so. In fact, and quite often they prefer to do both symotaeneously simply because it is beneficial. That shouldn't be so easily overlooked.

You are correct, but there is no evidence to suggest that the USA has had any direct relationship with ISIS. Indeed, ISIS is an organisation opposed to everything the USA and its allies have been fighting for over the last 20 years. It would seem illogical for ISIS to be supported to such an extent that people are claiming.

Thanks for the reply.

originally posted by: CallYourBluff

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: CallYourBluff
So they swore allegiance to Al Qaeda who are funded by the USA and we can't blame the USA for funding ISIS?

Do you have evidence?

Yes my Youtube/wikipedia research, haha. No not really, I'd say it's impossible to have evidence of anything going on over there. To much misinformation.

Haha, good comeback. Wikipedia isn't as bad as everyone claims it to be. I find it an alright tool in the early stages of research.

Yeah, you're right. It is extremely convoluted, and the average person is never going to know the goings on over there. What we do know, is that there is no current evidence to suggest that the USA has supported ISIS. ISIS opposes everything the USA stands for, and it is logical to assume then, at the lack of evidence, that the USA is not supporting the organisation.

It seems clear to me, just by looking at ISIS' origins, and its goals.

originally posted by: PaulTheDuke
a reply to: daaskapital

Thank you for bringing some "light" in this misinformations.

Before I read your thread,I somehow blamed USA for supporting ISIS,but I had big doubts on that. Even now,I don't see the logic debated in some other threads :US secretly supports ISIS in order to get money from other nations in that area to help them fight that big terrorist group.

I think that Russia should leave Ukrayne alone and to come and fight against this islamic group.It is a bigger threat that can involve innocent nations who doesn't have any connection with this middle-east war.

No problem, PaulTheDuke.

The logic does seem to be missing in a lot of arguments, but as with everything, nothing can be 100% certain.

I agree with you. State's shouldn't interrupt in the affairs of others. Russia is actually aiding Iraq and Syria in their fights against ISIS. Russia had recently supplied Iraq with fighter jets to target ISIS.

It is good to see that such a threat can bring states closer together in the pursuing of evil.

Thanks for the reply.

a reply to: daaskapital

I support what your trying to do however, there is no absolute truth regarding ISIS.

There is too much propaganda going on.

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: daaskapital
a reply to: SLAYER69

There is no doubt that Western actions have contributed to the overall mess that is the Middle-East. I do not deny that, but i think it is wrong for people to state that the USA was directly responsible for the establishment of ISIS and other extreme Jihadist groups in the region.

The allegations are illogical, and have no legitimate evidence to support their foundations. Of course, i would welcome any solid evidence, but i am yet to see it.

Thanks for commenting.

Although there official origins is certainly convoluted and the straight forward history rundown is appreciated. However, there is a difference between officially supporting a policy or decision and unofficially doing so. In fact, and quite often they prefer to do both symotaeneously simply because it is beneficial. That shouldn't be so easily overlooked.

You are correct, but there is no evidence to suggest that the USA has had any direct relationship with ISIS.

Well if there was direct evidence than the intel boys wouldn't be very good at their jobs. It doesn't necessarily take much to create plausible deniability.

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: CallYourBluff

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: CallYourBluff
So they swore allegiance to Al Qaeda who are funded by the USA and we can't blame the USA for funding ISIS?

Do you have evidence?

Yes my Youtube/wikipedia research, haha. No not really, I'd say it's impossible to have evidence of anything going on over there. To much misinformation.

Haha, good comeback.

Wikipedia isn't as bad as everyone claims it to be. I find it an alright tool in the early stages of research.

Yeah, you're right. It is extremely convoluted, and the average person is never going to know the goings on over there. What we do know, is that there is no current evidence to suggest that the USA has supported ISIS. ISIS opposes everything the USA stands for, and it is logical to assume then, at the lack of evidence, that the USA is not supporting the organisation.

It seems clear to me, just by looking at ISIS' origins, and its goals.

They don't oppose everything. They like the infidel, western mobile phone.
I don't know if you're aware of Stewart Lee but this little bit about a Taxi Driver I think is quite fitting for your thread.

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: CallYourBluff

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: CallYourBluff
So they swore allegiance to Al Qaeda who are funded by the USA and we can't blame the USA for funding ISIS?

Do you have evidence?

Yes my Youtube/wikipedia research, haha. No not really, I'd say it's impossible to have evidence of anything going on over there. To much misinformation.

Haha, good comeback.

Wikipedia isn't as bad as everyone claims it to be. I find it an alright tool in the early stages of research.

Yeah, you're right. It is extremely convoluted, and the average person is never going to know the goings on over there. What we do know, is that there is no current evidence to suggest that the USA has supported ISIS. ISIS opposes everything the USA stands for, and it is logical to assume then, at the lack of evidence, that the USA is not supporting the organisation.

It seems clear to me, just by looking at ISIS' origins, and its goals.

Well here are some links that have a somewhat different narrative. One is an interview with Sheikh Nabil Na'eem about the origins of ISIS. Link Here's another that claims Snowden's docs prove ISIS is a Mossad creation. There's no link to the Snowden doc, so that has yet to be determined. Link Anyone know where the depository of Snowden docs are for online viewing - those that Greenwald has released?


Edit: I think there is also a link between ISIS and Benghazi and that's why we're not getting the true info on what happened there. They need to protect Hillary.

thank you very much for giving us straightforward official version of events.

sole purpose of providing members the truth regarding ISIS and its origins

now I am much happier when I see that some media, contributors on wikipedia and US government have decided for all of us what is the truth we should believe in.

the only truth we should believe in.

the only truth we should believe in.

the only truth we should believe in.

it completely removes the need for doing my own thinking.

maybe you could solve all the problems we're discussing on ATS by posting the official version of it.

thank you for providing the sole truth about ISIS.

the sole truth.

the only truth.

the only truth.

the only truth.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: daaskapital
a reply to: SLAYER69

There is no doubt that Western actions have contributed to the overall mess that is the Middle-East. I do not deny that, but i think it is wrong for people to state that the USA was directly responsible for the establishment of ISIS and other extreme Jihadist groups in the region.

The allegations are illogical, and have no legitimate evidence to support their foundations. Of course, i would welcome any solid evidence, but i am yet to see it.

Thanks for commenting.

Although there official origins is certainly convoluted and the straight forward history rundown is appreciated. However, there is a difference between officially supporting a policy or decision and unofficially doing so. In fact, and quite often they prefer to do both symotaeneously simply because it is beneficial. That shouldn't be so easily overlooked.

You are correct, but there is no evidence to suggest that the USA has had any direct relationship with ISIS.

Well if there was direct evidence than the intel boys wouldn't be very good at their jobs. It doesn't necessarily take much to create plausible deniability.

That's true. But this thread wasn't necessarily authored to prove that the USA doesn't support ISIS. It was created to dispel rumours.

What we do know is that ISIS was originally formed in 2004, in response to the allied invasion of Iraq. That in and of itself, would be an illogical move for the USA to support. Now, today, we have the USA bombing ISIS in order to ensure that the fall of Iraq does not come to fruition.

The above tells me that the USA didn't support ISIS. Not in its infancy, and not now. That leaves the question open for Syria though. Did they support ISIS in Syria? I believe not, as the US was firmly in support of the moderate rebels, who were once the major opposition force in the state. Indeed, Obama had tried securing further support for them in June of this year. It would be a stupid move to spend millions in support of a moderate group, only to turn around and fund a jihadist group of which had previously been an enemy to the USA.

Overall, i find it hard to believe that the USA has directly aided ISIS.

a reply to: demus

Are you going to post anything of any real value or are you just going moan about how one line has soured your morning bowl of Cheerios?