Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
joc

Who Is Running ISIS?

260 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Space Commander Travis

i could say something like "for ********'s sake, can you ever get it into your head the the Israeli state is not synonymous with Judaism as a whole, and that applies even more so to netanyahu's quasi-fascist version of Zionism", but it'd really make not the slightest bit of difference, would it.

Edited by Norbert Dentressangle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
and then

Hmmmm.... I'd be cautious about statements like ".. it is clearly a fact" when it comes to the activities of Mossad and the CIA, Br Cornelius. In the literal sense, most of their activities are NOT published to the general public, so "facts" are usually far from clear, and are usually "assumptions" or "beliefs" on our part, rather than anything that could be corroborated.

I read a book a couple of years ago; darned if I can remember the name, but it was by a reputable journalist, and it was an overview of the Iraq war. It included many chapters on the planning both of the war, and the likely aftermath.

I mention it because the journalist was astonished at the LACK of planning for the aftermath. Even relatively junior officers (up to Colonel level, if I recall correctly) in CentCom where sounding alarm bells about this lack. The top commanders, however, seemed obsessed with political considerations (including budgets), and seemed blinkered by this odd belief that the population would arise against Saddam, and there would be a popular revolution resulting in democratic elections. It was almost an article of faith.

I mention this to illustrate that the ability of the US military to predict outcomes is secondary to the preconceptions of the Theatre Commander and his advisors, some of whom are dangerously close to the political process. (as was General Tommy Franks during the second gulf war).

I'm not sure how chaos in the Middle East would enhance US interests. Business usually thrives on stability. For that reason I tend to lean towards the "c*** up" theory of US involvement, rather than it being part of a grand, synchronised conspiracy.

Agreed. NEVER underestimate the ability of the US government to run afoul of logic and good reasoning! But for some - and Br isn't the only one - it is second nature to assume the worst about America. They make it quite clear that they feel the US is THE problem on the planet and if only IT could be "sorted" then tings..they'd be irrey mon! :w00t:

They can't even seem to admit their stances to themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2

The way I see it Isis will take over Iraq and form a new Islamic state , unless a new US government takes over and decides to go in on the ground. It was a big mistake to go into Iraq, but a bigger mistake by leaving and let Iran be the force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1

The way I see it Isis will take over Iraq and form a new Islamic state , unless a new US government takes over and decides to go in on the ground. It was a big mistake to go into Iraq, but a bigger mistake by leaving and let Iran be the force.

Regional powers need to take care of ISIL by themselves. If Iran wants to secure Iraq form this extremist group, why should that be a problem? I think they have been very helpful in this fight so far. The Iran-backed Shi'a militamen are in fact the extra boots on the ground that was needed. But you need to realize that this is not a short term matter. It will be long, hard and not without setbacks but they will probably defeat this group, especially with a tilted balance (air cover).

Edited by Phenix20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Regional powers need to take care of ISIL by themselves. If Iran wants to secure Iraq form this extremist group, why should that be a problem? I think they have been very helpful in this fight so far. The Iran-backed Shi'a militamen are in fact the extra boots on the ground that was needed. But you need to realize that this is not a short term matter. It will be long, hard and not without setbacks but they will probably defeat this group, especially with a tilted balance (air cover).

The air cover has been mostly ineffective due to their ROE. 75% of the sorties come back with ordnance still aboard. No forward controllers to confirm targets. It will be interesting to see how long and how costly retaking Ramadi will be. Iraq is probably going to dissolve into cantons based on ethnicity and religious preference. Iran will control the south eastern portion, the Sunnis the central area and the Kurds the northernmost portion. The fighting between the groups will probably continue for years. ISIS cannot defeat Iran (yet) but they can tie them down and bleed them for years. That seems to benefit S.A., the US and Israel so obviously people assume those countries are funding ISIS. I think S.A. and the gulf states are funding ISIS and will continue to do because Obama has retreated completely from the US role in the region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Agreed. NEVER underestimate the ability of the US government to run afoul of logic and good reasoning! But for some - and Br isn't the only one - it is second nature to assume the worst about America. They make it quite clear that they feel the US is THE problem on the planet and if only IT could be "sorted" then tings..they'd be irrey mon! :w00t:

They can't even seem to admit their stances to themselves.

I base my opinion on the fact that the US/CIA have been doing exactly the same thing across the globe since the second world war. if it was such a disastrous policy approach then they would have learned and stopped doing it. the reason they still back extremist terrorists is because ultimately it works in changing regimes to ones more favourable to American interests at minimum cost and minimum US casualties.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
I think S.A. and the gulf states are funding ISIS and will continue to do because Obama has retreated completely from the US role in the region.

Yes, SA & Co. are and will keep funding ISIS... because.. (wait for it) 'Obama has retreated completely from the US role in the region'.

Jesus. Convoluted reasoning much? You cant tell me you believe this with a straight face, surely. Not even you. Can you?

In any case, for those too busy bickering amongst eachother about Israel / CIA.. Please see posts 248/249, which factually indicates what we have been suspecting / discussing for some time now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

i see, and I suppose you expect me not to be offended by statements like the above (endorsed by your friend And then).

it was not my intention to offend - it's just the rough and tumble of the forum isn't it..?

and when ever Israel comes into it - the tumble gets even rougher -

Yes, SA & Co. are and will keep funding ISIS... because.. (wait for it) 'Obama has retreated completely from the US role in the region'.

Jesus. Convoluted reasoning much? You cant tell me you believe this with a straight face, surely. Not even you. Can you?

In any case, for those too busy bickering amongst eachother about Israel / CIA.. Please see posts 248/249, which factually indicates what we have been suspecting / discussing for some time now.

Yeah - stop bickering Norb - - - :)

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

In any case, for those too busy bickering amongst eachother about Israel / CIA.. Please see posts 248/249, which factually indicates what we have been suspecting / discussing for some time now.

from the link in post 248 -

http://levantreport....-syrian-regime/

The newly released DIA report makes the following summary points concerning “ISI” (in 2012 “Islamic State in Iraq,”) and the soon to emerge ISIS:

  • Al-Qaeda drives the opposition in Syria

  • The West identifies with the opposition

  • The establishment of a nascent Islamic State became a reality only with the rise of the Syrian insurgency (there is no mention of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State’s rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits; see section 4.D. below)

  • The establishment of a “Salafist Principality” in Eastern Syria is “exactly” what the external powers supporting the opposition want (identified as “the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey”) in order to weaken the Assad government

  • “Safe havens” are suggested in areas conquered by Islamic insurgents along the lines of the Libyan model (which translates to so-called no-fly zones as a first act of ‘humanitarian war'; see 7.B.)

  • Iraq is identified with “Shia expansion” (8.C)

  • A Sunni “Islamic State” could be devastating to “unifying Iraq” and could lead to “the renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.” (see last non-redacted line in full PDF view.)

end of quote

If the public were aware of this when all the furore about the beheadings and the massacres by the 'Islamic State' dominated

the news - well - the public would have been astonished and very pssed off about it all - and I mean VERY -

It just all seems so wrong and stupid - and IMO - it will all end in tears - to add to the oceans of tears that the destruction of

Iraq, Libya and Syria has caused -

It's just not right - and I don't know what's going to happen long term with all this crap -

My advice to the leaders of the US, Britain etc - is - do us all a favour and JUST GET ON WITH RUSSIA / IRAN / SYRIA -

work on improving relations with them -

Make a bit of an effort to halt this slide into madness - please

What a difference a few years make - these pictures of Assad were taken before he contracted 'monsteritis' and some Powers-That-Be

decided that his monsteritis was SOOOOOOO bad that whole areas of the world had to be turned upside down and millions and millions

of innocent civilians had to die, be maimed, traumatised and displaced - to cure it - <_<

Assad of Syria Meets Pope, Queen Elizabeth, John Kerry and Tony Blair

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

.

Assad even came close to being knighted by the Queen in 2002 -

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Jul-01/178928-britain-considered-knighthood-for-syrias-assad-in-2002-report.ashx

Official papers have revealed that the U.K. government under Tony Blair considered asking the queen of England to bestow an honorary knighthood on Syrian President Bashar Assad, The Sunday Times reported.

According to documents obtained by the U.K. daily under freedom information laws, discussions to honor Assad took place prior to his 2002 visit to Britain where he sought “as much pomp and ceremony as possible.”

On his trip, Assad met Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles, had lunch with then Prime Minister Blair at Downing Street and other privileges.

The documents, according to the paper, show the lengths to which the British government went to accommodate Assad, including holding a joint press conference, manipulating media to portray Assad in a favorable light and efforts to boost his “photogenic” wife’s profile.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.