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

originally posted by: Bilk22

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 for those. I will be sure to give the interview with Sheikh Nabil Na'eem a listen.

I believe Global Research to be an unreliable source. I also believe the claim of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi being Mossad trained is false. The reason being that Snowden documents have ever only been released through trusted outlets such as the Guardian, the Washington Post and the Intercept.

As for Benghazi, i'm not sure on that one. There could very well be a connection, as ISIS' influence spreads far and wide. That said, the US opened a whole can of worms when they interfered in Libya. The country just as, if not less, stable than what Iraq is at the moment.

a reply to: daaskapital

First off, our government doesnt generally (openly) admit to its actions. Why not? Because those involved would then be liable for criminal behavior (yah right, theres two sets of laws, one for them and another for the slaves).

Take your pick, lets say MKUltra. We learned about these activities as a result of the Church Committee hearings but according to the wiki entry:

Investigative efforts were hampered by the fact that CIA Director Richard Helms ordered all MKUltra files destroyed in 1973...

Wait for it... our government operates in secrecy (groundbreaking revelation I know).

With regards to ISUS (see what I did there), where does one start?

Well, you could ask, has the US government ever supported (armed, funded, installed, allied etc.), Moslem radicals, groups or dictators? The answer to that would be yes.

From Osama to Operation Ajax to the installation and arming of Saddam; theres a long standing history.

That brings us to ISUS.

We know that our government had been openly involved in supporting the Syrian "rebels" even to the point where our elected representatives were openly meeting with them.

It was then reported that Syrian rebels who would later join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors...

Moving right along in yet another "coincidence", another Syrian rebel group joins forces with ISIS.

But who cares right? Lets give them MORE money, Obama requested $500 million from Congress on Thursday to train and equip what the White House is calling “appropriately vetted” members of the Syrian opposition.

"Appropriately vetted", right, because we would never want to support the "bad guys"...

And if all of this wasnt weird or "coincidental" enough, we're told that the leader of ISUS is Mossad...

The point I'm trying to make (whether successfully or not is debatable) is that when it comes to the actions of our government, its very very VERY difficult to know whats really going on, especially with regards to the war OF terror.

So often times, we're left piecing together information and drawing our own conclusions.

It would seem that almost without exception, our government is somehow involved with these Moslem terrorist groups, dictators, wackos etc. As a matter of fact, I dont think any of these groups or individuals would be able to accomplish anything without outside help.

At which point do we stop calling it coincidental or chalking it up to a "miscalculation in foreign policy"?

originally posted by: demus

... some media, contributors on wikipedia and US government have decided for all of us what is the truth we should believe in.

that is propaganda.

In our Country, we will only have information that is permitted for us to see and likewise in the opposing Country.

a reply to: daaskapital

I think these are all reasonable questions for someone claiming to be certain the ISIL isn't sponsored directly by Saudi, CIA and Israel.

Why doesn't ISIL confront Israel directly or through their PR outlets?
Where is their funding coming from? It's channels are clearly different than Al Qaeda.
How are they doing their banking and transacting for oil?
Why are their military tactics, PR and goals so different from Al Qaeda?
How did they get trained on US hardware so quickly?
How do you think Wikipedia and the BBC are valid sources on covert intelligence ops?

originally posted by: demus

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

...

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.

...

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 wikipedia links have been provided as starting points for others' research. There is further information out there.

Until you can show us all an alternate version of events, i wouldn't be complaining.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

I'll take a swing at that.

They're going after the weakest link first then later, after, take on bigger targets.

originally posted by: daaskapital
I see so much bull# on ATS [cut]

[...] before swearing its allegiance to Al Qaeda [...]

and we all know who created al qaeda.
but lemme guess, you believe in the official bin laden story, right?

it doesn't surprise me though, when you're using wikipedia as a source to cure BS with BS.
the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, pretty far from your version of the story.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: daaskapital

I think these are all reasonable questions for someone claiming to be certain the ISIL isn't sponsored directly by Saudi, CIA and Israel.

Why doesn't ISIL confront Israel directly or through their PR outlets?

ISIS subscribes to a salafist ideology. I have read that they believe that they should unite all Muslims before advancing on infidels.

Where is their funding coming from? It's channels are clearly different than Al Qaeda.

ISIS is funded by wealthy individuals across the Middle-East. But they also earn money through the black market, where they engage in criminal activity. During the Syrian civil war, they have acquired oil fields, where they now make millions of dollars a month in trade.

How are they doing their banking and transacting for oil?

Black market.

Why are their military tactics, PR and goals so different from Al Qaeda?

ISIS has a lot of money, and can therefore invest more of it into PR and military tactics. It's goals are more or less the same as Al Qaedas, only that they are pursuing them through a different route. Al Qaeda also seeks to establish a caliphate.

How did they get trained on US hardware so quickly?

Some ISIS fighters were once moderate rebels trained by the USA. They may or may not have been trained in the use of US military hardware.

How do you think Wikipedia and the BBC are valid sources on covert intelligence ops?

They are starting points for research. They have been included to aid those in beginning their research. Common sense and history tells me that the likelihood of ISIS being supported by the USA are slim. ISIS was formed in opposition to the allied invasion of Iraq, and the USA is currently bombing them. Their support in Syria is unlikely, considering the amounts invested into moderate Syrian rebels.

a reply to: daaskapital

Do you have evidence?

Do you?

ISIS was established by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in early 2004,

Not under Husseins watch!

Thread Fail

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: Bilk22

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.

As for Benghazi, i'm not sure on that one. There could very well be a connection, as ISIS' influence spreads far and wide. That said, the US opened a whole can of worms when they interfered in Libya. The country just as, if not less, stable than what Iraq is at the moment.

Well I think you hit the nail here. Libya was stable and Khadafy was being a model citizen. Why did they want to upset that? They had to know that extremists were going to move in. I mean they can't be that stupid. Can they? So it had to be by design. I can draw no other conclusion.

My friends, this is ISIS: An Egyptian goddess. We all know that the NWO loves to insert their occult iconography hidden in plain sight in everything they do. Little known fact: ISIS was originally going to be called "13 step Pyramid with All seeing Eye floating on top" but that one was a little too difficult to create an acronym out of.
All the evidence I need to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that ISIS is a proxy army for the NWO is: The US pulled its military advisers out of IRAQ and for no reason stopped shipping military equipment to the Iraqi government just as ISIS was on the move. Then Putin sent military equipment to the Iraqi government, presumably, to cock-block the US agenda of creating a problem just so they can offer a military solution.
Also ISIS has US weapons. How did they get those? They found them in an abandoned military installation? I'm pretty sure that only happens in video games. I'm sure that when they found the stash of weapon they also received 50 health points.
And wiki is hardly a source for "evidence" Wiki is easily editable. Most recently Russia altered the wiki entry for the downed flight in Ukraine and removed the word terrorists. The Us no doubt does the same but perhaps they are a bit more sophisticated in their methods.

a reply to: daaskapital

(what kind of further research if you already gave us "the truth"?

did the USA supplied Syrian rebel groups with weapons, funding and training?

did the weapons and equipment provided by US and other countries always arrive to the "right address"?

The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.

The arms are being delivered as the United States is also shipping new types of nonlethal gear to rebels. That aid includes vehicles, sophisticated communications equipment and advanced combat medical kits.

...the efforts have lagged because of the logistical challenges involved in delivering equipment in a war zone and officials’ fears that any assistance could wind up in the hands of jihadists.

a reply to: daaskapital

Who gave (Isis)...the name (Isis)? I am still not clear on that...I would really like to know.

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: daaskapital
I see so much bull# on ATS [cut]

[...] before swearing its allegiance to Al Qaeda [...]

and we all know who created al qaeda.
but lemme guess, you believe in the official bin laden story, right?

it doesn't surprise me though, when you're using wikipedia as a source to cure BS with BS.
the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, pretty far from your version of the story.

ISIS was formed separate of Al Qaeda, and are now separate of Al Qaeda. They may have pledged allegiance, but they were never a branch of Al Qaeda.

There are interesting parts to the Bin Laden story, but that discussion is for another time.

Wikipedia has been linked to provide those with starting points of research. The 'BS' presented by me, in this thread, is better than the BS espoused by some i have seen. Just saying.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: daaskapital

Do you have evidence?

Do you?

ISIS was established by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in early 2004,

Not under Husseins watch!

Thread Fail

The way in which ISIS was formed, and the way in which it conducts its activities, is evidence enough that they are opposed to the USA, and are therefore not likely supported by them.

Saddam Hussein was ousted on 9 April 2003/ 1 year before the establishment of Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād, or ISIS.

No, you fail.

a reply to: daaskapital

I read what you posted but I don't see how it rules out western influence. Not directly but through assets. The reason I believe this is it seems that all that ISIL is doing is getting attention from western tax payers who fund very large military. Once we are convinced that these guys are a real threat, life is no longer good for ISIL. That is not a guess.
What would be point of stirring up the crap ISIL is if your ISIL. Were they born yesterday?

I don't doubt that ISIL has a history and a purpose on their own but I question who this is going to benefit in the long run. Like 9/11.... did AQ gain anything from that or was it banks than lend out enormous national debts and defence contractors that get the biggest share of the money?

There might be an air tight back story but my gut won't buy it. This is about power and Influence and I doubt ISIL even knows what they are doing.

originally posted by: demus
a reply to: daaskapital

(what kind of further research if you already gave us "the truth"?

You should probably stop being a smartarse. It's not helping anything.

did the USA supplied Syrian rebel groups with weapons, funding and training?

Yes, they did. I stated that in the OP.

did the weapons and equipment provided by US and other countries always arrive to the "right address"?

That is unknown. But if they did unintentionally land in Jihadist hands, it is still not proof for deliberate and direct support of the Islamic organisations by the USA.

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.

I don't think many people have said the US established ISIS, however I have said that the Western world in general is responsible for turning ISIS into the powerful organization that it is now. The rebel ties with groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Muslim Brotherhood (all those groups are closely connected and have similar goals) have been documented since the early days of Libya. Yet the Western world chose to support the rebels overthrow multiple Governments, and in the process they have indirectly strengthened extremist groups such as ISIS.

This is actually a thread you posted back in 2012:
Al Qaeda Taking Deadly New Role in Syria Conflict

originally posted by: caladonea
a reply to: daaskapital

Who gave (Isis)...the name (Isis)? I am still not clear on that...I would really like to know.

After they became the Islamic State of Iraq, and after they expanded into Syria, it was proposed that ISI and Jabhat al-Nusra merge into 'ISIS'. That proposition was refused, so ISIS moved into Syria unilaterally, after rebranding itself as such.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You are exactly right.