THE CREATION OF ISIS

The U.S. is bombing Syria to wrest control of the oil from ISIS which gained its foothold directly in the region through the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Jordan funding and arming ISIS' predecessors in Syria. Nothing better illustrates the bankruptcy of the Obama administration's foreign policy than funding groups that turn on the U.S. again and again, a neo-con fueled cycle of profits for war makers and destruction of ever-shifting "enemies."

The fact can't be refuted: ISIS was born of Western intervention in Iraq and covert action in Syria. Arming the alleged freedom-seeking Syrian opposition created the monster that roams the region. ISIS and the U.S. have a curious relationship -- mortal enemies that, at the same time, benefit from some of the same events. For example:

A: Ousting former Iraqi President Nouri al Maliki for his refusal to consent to the continued presence of U.S. troops in his country.

B: Regime change in Syria.

C: Arming the Kurds so they can separate from Iraq, a preliminary move to partitioning Iraq.

What a coincidence for war-profiteering neo-cons and the war industry, which has seen its stock rise since last week's congressional vote to fund the rapid expansion of war. We have met the enemy and he isn't only ISIS, he is us.

One wonders if Saudi training of these moderate mercenaries will include methods of beheading which were popularized by the Saudi government long before their ISIS progeny took up the grisly practice.

What does this have to do with the security of the 50 States United? Nothing! The U.S. citizens are being played.
There were alternatives. The U.S. and the international community could have contained and shrunk ISIS by cutting off its funds and its revenue from sale of oil on the black market. We could have looked to strike a deal with Syria and Iran.

In foreign policy, the administration has failed. Congress has failed. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties have passed the national checkbook to their patrons in the war contracting business. And passed the bill to future generations.

According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas." When Putin refused, the Saudi Prince vowed military action.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands.

It would seem that contradictory self-serving Saudi and Qatari oil interests are pulling the strings of an equally self-serving oil-focused US policy in Syria, if not the wider region. It is this - the problem of establishing a pliable opposition which the US and its oil allies feel confident will play ball, pipeline-style, in a post-Assad Syria - that will determine the nature of any prospective intervention: not concern for Syrian life.

Source to information above

The Film is on Documentary Addict where I first saw it. -

Documentary Addict - The Creation of ISIS


Safe For Work Version
Film Duration: 73 min

The Creation of ISIS - Part 1

The Creation of ISIS - Part 2

So, FYM. Here it is two and a half hours later and no replies unless someone sneaks in before me. Yet, farther up on the list are several bad guy bad guy isis threads that have a bunch of replies.
I wonder why not one wants to discuss your thread while they jump all over the others.
Certainly isis are what they are, but the why they are you have posted above is as complete a picture as I think can be drawn.

It is so painfully obvious that you would literally have to be an Ostrich with your head so far up your own ass not to see it or I seriously live in the #ing Twilight Zone.

What's worse, is how does one come to terms with knowing 1.) those who are driving this bus are maniacal sycophants and 2.) with the woeful ignorance abound, this is humanities vibration.

Humanity, I thought I knew you.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I'm a bit disappointed that nobody is interested in this, but oh well. Thanks for checking it out Terry.

The creation of ISIS was necessary for several reasons.

No.1 Much of the material posted on how Alquaeda is funded directed and supplied by one or more NATO countries and its allies (Saudi Arabia among others) is tied to, well, Alquaeda. If you run a search for ISIS (ISIL IS??) though then the same material will not show up in the search results. Alciada had accrued too much scrutiny on the net. Timr for a rebranding and while at it call it ISIS and other times ISIL or even IS this will complicate web searches.

No.2 that shadowy organisation Alquaeda was scary enough in the aftermath of 911. But now over 10 years later the populace does not want to go to war over a handfull of Alquaeda terrorists, a more substantial threat was needed. More on the nose. And with ISIS doing some beheadings a ground intervention seems possible now. Can you believe that only a couple of months ago the Pentagon had a full on mutiny on its hands over going to war in Syria?

No.3 A more substantial threat was needed not only because of the psychological impact, but as an substantial army to direct and use. Alquaeda can take out those pesky Syrian rebels that want to overthrow Assad and rebuild Syria. If ISIS takes out those rebels then whomever takes out ISIS (again ISIL IS? see how this will complicate web searches) will get to reshape Syria.

originally posted by: FearYourMind
The U.S. is bombing Syria to wrest control of the oil from ISIS which gained its foothold directly in the region through the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Jordan funding and arming ISIS' predecessors in Syria. Nothing better illustrates the bankruptcy of the Obama administration's foreign policy than funding groups that turn on the U.S. again and again, a neo-con fueled cycle of profits for war makers and destruction of ever-shifting "enemies."

The fact can't be refuted: ISIS was born of Western intervention in Iraq and covert action in Syria. Arming the alleged freedom-seeking Syrian opposition created the monster that roams the region. ISIS and the U.S. have a curious relationship -- mortal enemies that, at the same time, benefit from some of the same events. For example:

A: Ousting former Iraqi President Nouri al Maliki for his refusal to consent to the continued presence of U.S. troops in his country.

B: Regime change in Syria.

C: Arming the Kurds so they can separate from Iraq, a preliminary move to partitioning Iraq.

What a coincidence for war-profiteering neo-cons and the war industry, which has seen its stock rise since last week's congressional vote to fund the rapid expansion of war. We have met the enemy and he isn't only ISIS, he is us.

One wonders if Saudi training of these moderate mercenaries will include methods of beheading which were popularized by the Saudi government long before their ISIS progeny took up the grisly practice.

What does this have to do with the security of the 50 States United? Nothing! The U.S. citizens are being played.
There were alternatives. The U.S. and the international community could have contained and shrunk ISIS by cutting off its funds and its revenue from sale of oil on the black market. We could have looked to strike a deal with Syria and Iran.

In foreign policy, the administration has failed. Congress has failed. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties have passed the national checkbook to their patrons in the war contracting business. And passed the bill to future generations.

According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas." When Putin refused, the Saudi Prince vowed military action.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands.

It would seem that contradictory self-serving Saudi and Qatari oil interests are pulling the strings of an equally self-serving oil-focused US policy in Syria, if not the wider region. It is this - the problem of establishing a pliable opposition which the US and its oil allies feel confident will play ball, pipeline-style, in a post-Assad Syria - that will determine the nature of any prospective intervention: not concern for Syrian life.

Source to information above

The Film is on Documentary Addict where I first saw it. -

Documentary Addict - The Creation of ISIS


Safe For Work Version
Film Duration: 73 min

The Creation of ISIS - Part 1

The Creation of ISIS - Part 2

I think you are talking far too much sense to get any real response to your post.


Your replies will also fall on mostly deaf ears as they are well informed and rational comments.

Maybe you should try a more sensationalist OP that is more suited to the mainstream and you could get yourself some shiney stars and impressive flags.

Failing that you could continue to talk sense and encourage others to do likewise.

Nevermind.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
Yawn. Another blame the U.S. thread. So sick of them.

Yawn, It is kind of the fault of the US though is it not?

Please dont ask me to prove it though, history is your friend.