THURSDAY, JULY 10, 2014
The ISIS Is A U.S. Tool "Conspiracy Theories"
Is ISIS a creation of the United States government ?
I do not have enough data to judge on that question. My gut instinct on this trends towards "no." But there is some data that points into the "yes" directions and it seems that many people have judged "yes" on that basis.
In 1957 the CIA and MI6 conspired for regime change in Syria:
The plan called for funding of a "Free Syria Committee", and the arming of "political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities" within Syria. The CIA and MI6 would instigate internal uprisings, for instance by the Druze in the south, help to free political prisoners held in the Mezze prison, and stir up the Muslim Brotherhood in Damascus.
Starting from that confirmed conspiracy Mohsen Abdelmoumen suggests with some current data that a similar plan, with the endgame of breaking up Syria and Iraq, is in motion and that ISIS is an instrument in this.
Al-Maydeen TV, a Lebanese channel allegedly financed by Iran or Syria or Hizbullah or someone else, interviewed the Egyptian Sheikh Nabeel Naiem. The 40 minutes interview with English subtitles and a transcript can be found here. Sheikh Nabeel Naiem (the transliteration of the name may be wrong) claims to have been with Bin Laden in Afghanistan and explains why he believes that ISIS is a U.S. project using Jihadis to incite a "100 year war" between Sunni and Shia in the Middle East. The sheikh is very critical of the Muslim Brotherhood and I am not sure about some of his more propagandistic claims but he is well read and connects some well known U.S. documents to the current situation on the ground. He also alleges that there is a U.S. plot against the Saudi regime.
Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, a Lebanese academic and resistance supporter, just adds the facts and concludes on her blog:
[S]everal developments this week reveal that ISIS has effectively become the US’ (and of course Saudi’s) new weapon of choice in confronting the Iran- Hizbullah-Syria-Iraq Axis:Obama acknowledges that the notion of a “ready-made moderate Syrian force that was able to defeat Assad” was a “fantasy”, and only days later, requests $500 million from Congress to fund this fantasy; the following day, the leader of one of the leading “moderate” Islamist groups Obama was alluding to, the Syrian Revolutionary Front, tells The Independent that the fight against al-Qaeda was “not our problem” and admits that his fighters conduct joint operations with al-Qaeda’s representative in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra; a Kurdish intelligence source reveals to The Telegraph that his people had informed the US and British governments of an imminent ISIS takeover of Mosul but that the warning “fell on deaf ears;” PM Maliki blames the US’ delayed delivery of 36 F16s Iraq had purchased for ISIS’ advance into northern and western Iraq; Netanyahu warns Obama against military intervention in Iraq, arguing “when your enemies are fighting one another, don’t strengthen either one of them. Weaken both;” ISIS declares war on Lebanon.
The facts speak for themselves.
Well? Are these all the facts and do they speak for themselves? I am not ready to decide.
Syria: ISIS Against The States
This New York Times op-ed by Matt Atkins is another propaganda piece for the moderate cuddly homegrown al-Qaeda:
[C]an the West meaningfully influence the military situation in Syria while continuing to eschew Islamist groups, now that they are dominant among the rebels? “The Free Syrian Army has been weak and divided,” said Richard Barrett, a former British intelligence official. “And so the Islamic Front is really the only game in town if you want to attack ISIS in Syria.”
If Washington and its partners want to push back against both Assad and ISIS at once, they will have to be less squeamish about picking allies in Syria. Otherwise, they may not find any left at all.
The only game in town if one wants to attack ISIS is the Syrian Arab Army under Bashar al-Assad. Anything else is just wishful thinking.
In a few month the Islamic Front will no longer exist. It will vanish like that phantasy of a Free Syrian Army. Parts of it will swear allegiance to the Islamic State, parts will give up fighting and parts will change over to the government side. Then the real war against ISIS will start.
As there is no alternative in sight Iraq will then likely still be ruled by Prime Minister Maliki despite U.S. demands for regime change. He will receive weapons, intelligence and advice from Russia and Iran. Unlike Syria Iraq will even be able to pay for those. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps will help Maliki to build up a force of strong (religiously) motivated national guard battalions which will be the manpower needed to reconquer and hold the cities ISIS has so far taken.
By the end of the year ISIS will be squeezed from the west, south and east by Syrian and Iraqi government forces and from the north by the Kurd. The ISIS (or IS) will meanwhile implement the Management of Savagery (recommended) before it really starts to consolidate its caliphate.
While ISIS has plundered lots of weapons and resources it still lacks the political and military dimensions of a nation state. With overwhelming air and artillery power the Iraqi and Syrian government sides can and will win the bloody and ferocious war.
#Sunni politician Haidar Malla calls on #Iraqi parliament to approve 3Kurdistan's referendum, based on pre-2003 #KRG borders.
Ammar Hakim's #Muwatin list demands Iraq PM to show evidence that #Kurds are supporting and harboring IS (formerly ISIS) in Erbil.
#Iraq. Who all is fighting in Iraq anyways? Is Iraq a prize or liability? Or is Iraq just bonkers? http://bit.ly/VT5kYF @vicenews
Retweeted by Joyce Karam
How could US military not discovered/destroyed chemical weapons in #Iraq? http://bigstory.ap.org/article/iraq-says-terrorists-seize-chemical-weapons-site …
#Kurdish ministers announce that they will boycott ministerial meetings with Baghdad in a press conference today. http://fb.me/3p61dvv7o