Tag Archives: ISIS created by US

Ramadi and America’s Fracturing of Iraq

By Eric Draitser
May 24, 2015
New Eastern Outlook

 

e5d7475a299a4d079b9f695cafac21cd_isil_isis_ramadiThe Western media has been consumed in recent days with the news that Islamic State militants have captured the strategically critical city of Ramadi in Iraq. The narrative is one of incompetence on the part of Iraqi military forces who, the corporate media tells us, are simply either ineffectual or hopelessly corrupt. Some analysts and pundits, especially those on the right who oppose Obama for various reasons, have used the fall of Ramadi to legitimize their claims that Obama’s “weakness” on the ISIS issue brought events to this point.

While there is truth to the assertion that Iraqi military forces are riddled with severe problems, from sectarianism in the command hierarchy, to poor training and, at times, organizational disarray, none of these issues is singularly responsible for the loss of Ramadi. Nor is it entirely accurate to say that Obama’s alleged weakness is really the cause.

Rather the primary reason, the one which the media carefully avoids including in their reportage, is the political and military sabotage of Iraq perpetrated by the United States in pursuit of its long-term agenda.

Indeed, while Washington waxes poetic about the need to more forcefully confront ISIS and destroy its military and terrorist infrastructure, the actual policies it has pursued are designed to achieve just the opposite. Instead of promoting unity of command and execution within the Iraqi armed forces, the Pentagon, Congress, and the White House have done everything to fracture Iraq’s political and military structures, fomenting rather than mollifying sectarian conflicts. Then the Washington Post can publish editorials blasting Iraqi fecklessness, and calling for a more robust US military presence. In this way, the US policy of promoting division and weakness within Iraq has directly led to the dire situation in Ramadi and throughout the country.

How Washington is Destroying Iraq…Again!

The fall of Ramadi has provided ammunition to opponents of Obama whose central argument – if such insanity can be believed – remains that the US should wage further war in Iraq. Leading warmongers, Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, both claim that the failure is due to Obama’s “big mistake” in not leaving behind troops in 2011. Graham described US policy as “a failure of Obama’s military strategy,” while McCain referred to it as “one of the most disgraceful episodes in American history… [The] policy…is not enough of anything,” Aside from the obvious absurdity of their claims, McCain and Graham, and the media narrative surrounding the entire issue, are a perfect illustration of the utterly backwards narrative presented by the corporate media to the American public.

In reality, the US, with Congress very much playing a central role, has studiously worked to undermine any chances for national resistance and military victory inside Iraq by Iraqi security forces. Perhaps Graham and McCain forgot that the US has worked diligently to create divisions between Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish elements within the Iraqi military architecture.

As recently as late April 2015, Congressional Republicans were pushing for a defense authorization bill that would directly arm and fund Sunni and Kurdish militias inside Iraq, treating them as “independent countries.” An obvious means of fomenting further sectarian conflicts and fracturing the fragile and precarious unity of the government in Baghdad and its military forces, this bill is indicative of a broader policy, one aimed at de facto partition of Iraq along ethno-religious lines. Moreover, those who follow US politics and military adventurism should understand that legislation follows rather than precedes the policy. The US has likely been arming Sunni and Kurdish factions for a long time already, thereby further degrading the continuity of the military.

But aside from the political attempts to fragment the country, US military actions belie the real agenda which, rather than combating ISIS, is geared towards degradation of military capability of all sides, which is, in effect, support for ISIS.

Since the US campaign against the group in Iraq began, there have been countless media reports of US weapons and supplies falling directly into the clutches of ISIS, succoring it at precisely the time that it has suffered heavy losses at the hands of Shiite militias in Iraq and the Syrian Arab Army and Hezbollah across the border in Syria. As Naeem al-Uboudi, the spokesman for one of the main groups fighting ISIS in Tikrit told the NY Times, “We don’t trust the American-led coalition in combating ISIS… In the past, they have targeted our security forces and dropped aid to ISIS by mistake.

This fact is critical to understanding the true motivation of Washington in this campaign, namely inflicting maximum damage on both ISIS and Shiite militias fighting it. In effect, this ‘controlled chaos’ strategy promotes and extends, rather than concludes the war. Additionally, the allegation of US-ISIS collusion is further supported by dozens of accounts of airdropped US weapons being seized by ISIS. As Iraqi MP Majid al-Ghraoui noted in January, “The information that has reached us in the security and defense committee indicates that an American aircraft dropped a load of weapons and equipment to the ISIS group militants at the area of al-Dour in the province of Salahuddin… This incident is continuously happening and has also occurred in some other regions.

Looking at a map, one begins to see then that ISIS has received US support in each of the strategically significant areas where it has made important gains. When reports of US airdrops going to ISIS in the province of Salahuddin first emerged, it coincided with the group’s military success in Tikrit. Now we see Ramadi in the easternmost part of Anbar province has fallen within weeks of more reports emerging of US-supplied arms being destined for ISIS in the al-Baqdadi region of Anbar.

Taken in total then, it seems that US strategy has been to overtly attack ISIS while covertly supporting it. Similarly, the US has claimed to be supporting, or at least collaborating indirectly, with Shiite militias connected to Iran. At the very same time, those militias have repeatedly claimed that US has bombed them deliberately. Such seemingly contradictory military objectives lead to the inescapable conclusion that US policy has been, and continues to be, chaos and fomenting war. So for Washington to now claim that the fall of Ramadi is somehow a major tragedy, that it represents a failure of strategy, is utter disinformation. In effect, the fall of Ramadi is an orchestrated outgrowth of the “managed chaos” strategy.

The History and Politics of America’s Chaos Theory in Iraq

From a purely geopolitical perspective, the aim of the US is to foment sectarian conflict and prolong the war in Iraq as a means of checking Iranian influence in Iraq and throughout the region. The US is mostly incapable of achieving such an objective in Syria due to the continued success and cohesion of the Syrian Arab Army; in Iraq this is very much achievable. But this fragmentation and de facto partition of the country has been a long-standing policy, one that the US has pursued in myriad ways for more than a decade.

Keen political observers will recall that even before, and during the early stages, of the Iraq War in 2003, there was serious talk of dividing Iraq into religiously and ethnically homogenous territories. As influential neocon and President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations Leslie Gelb wrote in an op-ed in the NY Times in November 2003, “The only viable strategy…may be to correct the historical defect and move in stages toward a three-state solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south.” While this policy was not enacted immediately, the United States has always pursued this long-term strategy to varying degrees.

The major stumbling block has been the stubborn desire of various members of Iraq’s political elite to be independent and sovereign actors, not US puppets. The primary offender from Washington’s perspective was former Prime Minister, and current Vice President, Nouri al-Maliki, who refused to bow to the diktats of Washington, and was instead portrayed as a corrupt, autocratic Iranian stooge. But what were Maliki’s real transgressions from Washington’s perspective?

First and foremost were Maliki’s attitudes and policies towards the US occupation and the presence of military and non-military personnel. In fact, it was Maliki’s refusal to grant the US request to maintain military bases in the country after the withdrawal – against Obama’s wishes – which prompted the first round of attacks on him and his government. And it was then that the image of Maliki as Iranian puppet truly became popularized, at least in Western media. Indeed, as The Guardian noted at the time, “The Pentagon had wanted the bases to help counter growing Iranian influence in the Middle East. Just a few years ago, the US had plans for leaving behind four large bases but, in the face of Iraqi resistance, this plan had to be scaled down this year to a force of 10,000. But even this proved too much for the Iraqis.

Maliki also took the absolutely monumental step of closing down Camp Ashraf and killing or expelling its inhabitants. Far from being a camp for “Iranian political exiles” as Western media have attempted to portray, Ashraf was the base of the Iranian terrorist organization Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), an organization supported wholeheartedly by neocons (as well as most “liberals”) in its continued terror war against Iran. Of course, because Maliki dared to cleanse Iraq of these US-sponsored terrorist thugs, he was immediately convicted in the court of US public opinion which described the operation as an assault on Iranian “freedom fighters.” We know all too well what the US means when it describes terrorists as freedom fighters.

And so, by refusing basing rights, refusing to extend immunity and legal protections to US contractors operating in Iraq, and wiping out Camp Ashraf and MEK members, Maliki became a villain. More to the point, it was his refusal to allow Iraq to be used by the US and its allies as a military and political bulwark against Iran that earned him the West’s ire. Far from wanting a “sovereign, self-reliant and democratic Iraq” as Obama eloquently proclaimed, Washington needed the country to remain a client state to be used as a weapon of US foreign policy in the region. By rejecting this, Maliki, almost overnight, became “a dictator.”

By ousting Maliki, the US once again pursued a policy of fragmentation, deliberately installing current Prime Minister Abadi who they knew would be weak, incapable of maintaining the unity of Iraq, and most importantly, amenable to US demands. As the NY Times wrote in the wake of the fall of Ramadi last week:

At the urging of American officials who sought to sideline the [Shiite] militias, Mr. Abadi… gambled that the combination of United States airstrikes and local Sunni tribal fighters would be able to drive Islamic State fighters out of [Ramadi]…But as the setback brought the Shiite militias, and their Iranian backers, back into the picture in Anbar, intensified Shiite infighting appeared to leave the prime minister more vulnerable than ever… He became prime minister last year with strong backing from the United States on the belief that he would be a more inclusive leader than his predecessor, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, and would reach out to the country’s minority Sunni Arabs and Kurds. Mr. Abadi has done so, by pushing for the arming of local Sunni tribesmen and reaching a deal with the Kurds to share oil revenue.

As the Times correctly notes, Abadi has, quite predictably, followed orders from Washington and pursued a strategy which, from the western perspective is “inclusive,” but is in reality very much sectarian. This is the inverted reality that the US and the Western media portrays; the arming and support for Sunni and Kurdish factions is “inclusive” rather than divisive, which is what it is in the real world. By forcing the Shiites, the dominant group demographically and politically in Iraq, into a secondary role, the US once again foments, rather than bridges sectarian divides. What is this called if not “divide and conquer”?

It should not be lost on anyone that this policy which, as noted above, dates back more than a decade, is all designed to curb Iranian influence in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. By forcing Shiites into the back seat politically, economically, and militarily, the US has hoped to stifle Iran’s development from isolated nation into a regional power. By doing so, the US once again acts in its own interests, as well as those, of course, of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. Perhaps that grouping of countries rings a bell for people following the development of the war on Syria these past four years? Indeed, it is the same actors.

Seen in this way then, the US agenda and strategy in Iraq is precisely the same as that for the entire region: block Iran (and, on a grander scale, Russia and China) with regime change when and where possible. When regime change is impossible or undesirable, inflict chaos and foment conflict.

One might call such a policy cynicism of the highest order. While true, there are still other words that perhaps better reflect the true insidiousness of it all: colonialism and imperialism.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City, he is the founder of StopImperialism.org and OP-ed columnist for RT, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Massive military escalation looms as ISIS advances in Iraq

By Niles Williamson
May 22, 2015
World Socialist Web Site

 

The Pentagon announced Thursday that it will rush 2,000 AT-4 anti-tank rockets to the Iraqi military following the capture of Ramadi, capital of Iraq’s western Anbar province, by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). ISIS fighters have seized control of tanks, artillery and large caches ammunition abandoned by the Iraqi military as they fled. More than 40,000 civilians have been forced from their homes by the ISIS advance.

US president Barack Obama, in an interview with the Atlantic published Thursday, described the loss of Ramadi as a “tactical setback,” but said that he did not think that the US was losing the fight against ISIS. “There’s no doubt that in the Sunni areas, we’re going to have to ramp up not just training, but also commitment, and we better get Sunni tribes more activated than they currently have been,” Obama stated.

The fall of Ramadi last weekend, just 70 miles west of Baghdad, is a major defeat in the campaign against ISIS, with approximately 7,000 Iraqi soldiers completely routed. ISIS deployed at least 30 car bombs in the successful offensive, 10 of which were reportedly equivalent in size to the truck bomb used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, annihilating whole city blocks.

Military spokesman Colonel Steve Warren told reporters that the rockets were to be used by the Iraqi military to destroy possible car bombs from a much further distance than was possible with automatic weapons. “This is a good counter to that [type of bombing],” Warren stated.

Warren denied reports that the United States was considering training Iraqi soldiers to call in American airstrikes against ISIS targets. “If the JTAC [Joint Terminal Attack Controller] says, ‘Put a bomb there,’ no questions are asked,” he stated. “That is not something we are going to delegate to anyone other than Americans. Period.” Instead, Warren said, the US will train the Iraqi forces in better ways to call in air support by formatting their radio calls and identifying their positions to avoid being hit by American bombs.

The announcement of the expedited rocket deliveries came as ISIS continued to make advances towards Habbaniyah, 24 miles east of Ramadi. Iraqi Police major Khalid al-Fahdawi told Reuters on Thursday that ISIS forces had breached defensive positions in the city of Husaibah, six miles outside of Ramadi.

Far from activating the Sunni tribes, as suggested by Obama, the Iraqi government with US support is deploying approximately 4,000 Shiite militiamen to a military base outside Habbaniyah in preparation for an eventual counterattack against ISIS.

In the aftermath of the collapse of the Iraqi military in Anbar, Iraqi prime minister Haidar Al-Abadi has dispatched the Iranian-backed Shiite militias to spearhead the effort to retake the Sunni-dominated province. The militias have been ordered to coordinate with whatever remains of the Iraq military units that were routed and at least 2,000 police officers.

The deployment of the Shiite militias to retake Ramadi, a largely Sunni-populated city, will only serve to stoke sectarian tensions. American-supported Shiite militias and Iraqi Special Forces deployed in previous offensives against ISIS in Sunni areas have operated as death squads torturing and executing Sunni prisoners.

According to Human Rights Watch, the Shiite militias went on a rampage of retribution, looting and burning at least 3,200 buildings, including civilian homes, after pushing ISIS out of the city of Amerli in September 2014. Photos and videos have emerged showing men in the uniforms of Iraqi Special Forces posing with severed heads and dragging corpses behind their Humvees (see: “America’s ‘dirty brigades’ in Iraq”).

The logical outcome of the developments on the ground in Iraq is the reintroduction of thousands of American combat troops and an escalation of the air campaign. President Obama has already deployed approximately 3,000 troops to Iraq to serve as trainers and advisers for the Iraqi military.

Republican senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Senate Committee, criticized the White House on Monday and said that more US troops would be necessary as a result of the latest debacle in Iraq. “We will have to have more people on the ground and this is really serious, the fall of Ramadi,” McCain stated in an interview on MSNBC.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Forces Committee on Thursday, Frederick Kagan, one of the architects of the 2007 “surge” in Iraq, called for the deployment of as many as 20,000 American troops to assist the Iraqi military in any eventual effort to retake Ramadi.

Kagan reported that the fall of Ramadi had “complete derailed” plans announced at the beginning of the year to retake from ISIS the northern city of Mosul. “I think the fight for Ramadi will be hard enough,” Kagan said. “I think that these operations in and around Ramadi demonstrate that the Iraqi security forces are current levels of U.S. support are not capable of defending even their territory against determined ISIS attack, let alone clearing a major ISIS safe haven.”

Marine general Gregory Newbold, who retired in 2002 in opposition to plans for war with Iraq and advised Obama’s campaign for president in 2008, told NPR on Thursday that he disapproved of the White House’s strategy against ISIS in Iraq.

He called for an escalation of the air campaign and an overwhelming use of force by US ground troops. “What we need to do is become the single most effective and welcome option for those local governments,” Newbold said. “And when we do that, our engagement can’t be timid. It has to be so decisive in employment and so overwhelming an effect that ISIS as an idea, as well as a force, is humiliated.”

As the United States and the Iraqi government prepared a counterattack, ISIS made a second strategic advance on Thursday, seizing control of the Syrian city of Palmyra, some 400 miles northwest of Ramadi. ISIS has made significant advances in Syria at the same time that the United States has initiated a new program to train and equip so-called moderate rebels.

While framed in the context of fighting against ISIS, which developed as an outcome of the US policy of fomenting civil war in Syria, the operations undertaken by the CIA and US client states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are aimed ultimately at the overthrow of President Bashar al Assad, a key ally of both Iran and Russia. Despite continuous airstrikes by the US and allied forces since June of last year, ISIS now controls at least 50 percent of the territory in Syria and a third of the territory in Iraq.

Even as it drops bombs on Islamic State targets and launches Special Forces raids against ISIS members in Syria, the United States is in a de facto alliance with Al Nusra, the Al Qaeda affiliate against Assad. The Islamist fighters have proven to be much more effective in advancing America’s goal of ousting Assad than the so-called moderates. Weapons funneled into Syria by the United States, including anti-tank missiles, have often ended up in the hands of Al Nusra and ISIS fighters.

The Misinformation Burnout. Media Fatigue with “Islamism” and “Terrorism”

Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Terrorism

By Rev. Richard Skaff
May 19, 2015
Global Research

 

obama-isis“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe (1749-1832)

In this age of social media, 24 hours news service, and internet, the public is saturated with information or misinformation around the clock causing massive bloating and information fatigue resulting in significant indifference about important events in the world.

This phenomenon also applies to terrorism and Islamism where the media is constantly bombarding the airwaves with fear mongering images and bogus interviews with alleged experts and pundits in order to engender fear in the populace and ratings for their channels. “Be vigilant, because the Moslems are coming.” This is kind of retro, and a good reminder of the old cold war slogans like “The Russians or the commies are coming.”

Every nation must create a bogey man or a group to crucify and persecute, in order to unify the public behind their leaders, help them act out their collective aggression, and dodge the important domestic issues that plague the day.

Obama’s presidency initially attempted to moderate the news about terrorism and used intermittent reinforcement like re-killing of the dead OBL to keep people engrossed and scared, as well to earn kudos and increase presidential popularity. Unfortunately, as the 2016 election approaches, viewers can’t help but notice again a sudden airwave bombardment with terror and Islamists news. Per example, Al Qaeda is overhauled and renamed as ISIS to elicit more fear, rejuvenate interest, and pave the way for the next president JEB Bush ( see global research article June 29, 2014 titled “Who will be president in 2016: Theater of the absurd: Hillary Rodham Clinton versus John Ellis Bush) who will continue the ongoing presidential mission of saving our Christian nation from the evil Islamists that our government has once created and perpetuated for political and geostrategic purposes. Who will be the next terror organization once ISIS is overutilized?

It is capitalism 101 that calls for creating the problem, then, concocting the solution which will generate massive amounts of profits, power, and control. Per example, our government’s black operations that survive from the cash generated by drug money resulted for years in massive supplies of drugs into the ghettos, then, a war on drugs was waged in order to create a bigger law enforcement bureaucracy, give the illusion of winning wars and working to protect the public. Another example would be creating terror groups, then, developing the war on terror that generated billions of dollars for the Military Industrial Complex and the oil companies, and facilitated an easy path to spying on Americans, profiling them, micro-chipping them, as well exerting total control over the masses.

When it comes to terrorism, we began this journey in Afghanistan during the late 70s with the Mujahedeen, a mercenary group that was specifically trained by the CIA and the French intelligence into slitting throats and IEDs, in order to engulf the Soviet Union in a horrifying and losing war that mimicked the Vietnam War. Later on, this group was morphed and renamed into Al Qaeda which was originally the name of the computer data base that contained the names of the thousands of mujahedeen who were recruited and trained by the CIA to defeat the Russians, as admitted by former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, whose Foreign Office portfolio included control of British Intelligence Agency MI-6 and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), in a column published by the UK Guardian newspaper.[9] These mercenaries were employed and continue to be used across the globe to destabilize countries.

The new terror organization “ISIS” was given the name of an ancient Goddess that is easy to remember by the western public. Friendly names or logos are picked because they can be easily tattooed in the public’s mind, like 9 1 1. Public relations firms in New York are key players into creating these names and campaigns that capture public imagination. Usually, people living in caves are not pretty familiar with our common western cultural themes, which we tend to take for granted. That is why logos like 9 1 1, ISIS etc, are extremely effective.

What will the future bring to ISIS once the public grows weary and exhausted of this name and its alleged pseudo-organization? I am suggesting the name, “OSIRIS” which might be a decent prospective replacement (Organization for Social Injustice and Rulers of Islamic State) assuming the New York PR firms will adopt it. Osiris was the god of the dead, and ruler of the underworld. Osiris was the brother/husband of ISIS, and the brother of Nepthys and Seth. He was also the father of Horus. As well as being a god of the dead, unfortunately, Osiris was also a god of resurrection and fertility. [7]

Brief History into the name of ISIS

: Isis nursing Horus, wearing the headdress of Hathor. [2]

Isis (/ˈsɪs/; Ancient Greek: Ἶσις; original Egyptian pronunciation more likely “Aset” or “Iset”[1]) is a goddess from the polytheistic pantheon of Egypt. She was first worshiped in Ancient Egyptian religion, and later her worship spread throughout the Roman Empire and the greater Greco-Roman world. Isis is still widely worshiped by many pagans today in diverse religious contexts; including a number of distinct pagan religions, the modern Goddess movement, and interfaith organizations such as the Fellowship of Isis.

Isis was worshipped as the ideal mother and wife as well as the patroness of nature and magic. She was the friend of slaves, sinners, artisans and the downtrodden, but she also listened to the prayers of the wealthy, maidens, aristocrats and rulers.[2] Isis is often depicted as the mother of Horus, the falcon-headed deity associated with king and kingship (although in some traditions Horus’s mother was Hathor). Isis is also known as protector of the dead and goddess of children.

The name Isis means “Throne”.[3] Her headdress is a throne. As the personification of the throne, she was an important representation of the pharaoh’s power. The pharaoh was depicted as her child, who sat on the throne she provided. Her cult was popular throughout Egypt, but her most important temples were at Behbeit El-Hagar in the Nile delta, and, beginning in the reign with Nectanebo I (380–362 BCE), on the island of Philae in Upper Egypt.

In the typical form of her myth, Isis was the first daughter of Geb, god of the Earth, and Nut, goddess of the Sky, and she was born on the fourth intercalary day. She married her brother, Osiris, and she conceived Horus with him. Isis was instrumental in the resurrection of Osiris when he was murdered by Set. Using her magical skills, she restored his body to life after having gathered the body parts that had been strewn about the earth by Set.[4]

This myth became very important during the Greco-Roman period. For example it was believed that the Nile River flooded every year because of the tears of sorrow which Isis wept for Osiris. Osiris’s death and rebirth was relived each year through rituals. The worship of Isis eventually spread throughout the Greco-Roman world, continuing until the suppression of paganism in the Christian era.[5] The popular motif of Isis suckling her son Horus, however, lived on in a Christianized context as the popular image of Mary suckling her infant son Jesus from the fifth century onward.[6]

ISIS in the 21st century

ISIS is allegedly an Al Qaeda-linked Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant, known for its ruthless tactics and suicide bombers and who currently poses a threat throughout the Middle East.[3] It is also known as a militant group “Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham,” (ISIS) or the “Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant” (ISIL).[4] Allegedly, The Huffington Post reported that this group has declared its intent to restore the Islamic Caliphate, renaming itself as simply the Islamic State (IS) and naming a leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as Caliph.[8]

It is comical and suspicious that these ragtag mercenaries and U.S. assets have the skills and the ability to inculcate themselves into the western minds. Unfortunately, these thugs are covered by the media around the clock to produce scary news. They become heroes and exceptional villains that movies are made about them. In reality, they are nothing but a tool to the money masters and power vampires who feed off human misery and resources like parasites. Unfortunately, once the blood is drawn, these parasites become fat and get the illusion of becoming lords and masters of the universe. Their ability to kill for the sake of killing and personal gain has given them endurance to maintain their reign over humanity for hundreds of years.

Recommendations for a new geo-strategy

Let’s face it; Islamism and the Middle East have been overdone. I sincerely hope that the Obama administration will work with the U.S. policy makers such as the Central Intelligence Agency, the military, and Private Arms Industry in another word the Military Industrial Complex, or as Michael Glennon in his National Security and Double Government book called them the “Trumanite Network” to finally shift the focus from the wretched Middle East to Eurasia and East Asia, which is Russia and China. We need revive the old slogans “The Russians are coming” which will carry more weight than ISIS. We also need to strategically combine it with another scary slogan “The Chinese are also coming” and as a result we need to step up the rhetoric and evoke perpetual and virtual wars with these powers in order to keep the public scared, impoverished, and subdued. Meanwhile, a war economy must have constant wars. It is time to move away from the McNamara vision of having low intensity conflicts to the 21st century’s virtual conflicts. These virtual conflicts can also be covered around the clock by the establishment media. As a result George Orwell’s vision will be completed.

Conclusion

The public has experienced terrible fatigue and boredom with Islamism and terrorism. The public’s mind is satiated with Islamism and can no longer absorb further propaganda. It’s clever to change the name from Al Qaeda to ISIS or even OSIRIS to renovate the anti-Islamic zeal and to re-trigger a phobic reaction of this religion and its people. However, while our leaders are escalating the rhetoric against terrorists and Islamists, they are at the same time Islamifying the United States and Europe by bringing in Moslem refugees from across the Middle East after destabilizing and destroying their countries.

It is time that the Anglo-American-Israeli axis begins to switch gear, and shift attention from Islamic terrorism to East Asian and Eurasian nuclear conflicts that will decimate the world.

The Chinese are Russians will be once again the new and exceptional villains who will be descending from the steppes to destroy the West just like the barbarians did before them. Islamists can still be used occasionally as agents for Russian and Chinese killing of westerners. Variety is the spice of life, therefore, a variety of monsters might keep the public interested and frightened, instead of bored and burned out with the same fictitious enemy. Eventually, as we experience another burnout with East Asia and Eurasia, we can always resort to aliens from outer space that will be invading our little petty earth. Beware, “The Green Aliens are coming.”

Meanwhile, let’s begin a perpetual and virtual war with Eurasia and East Asia. Then, every once in a while we’ll rotate the enemy to reduce information fatigue and preserve our fears and paranoia, and keep the government in total control of our lives.

Let’s remember that we desperately need the government as our father figure who protects us and control us from ourselves. Our own stupidity and insignificance is our worst enemy. As Ernest Becker once said, man is worm and is eaten by worm. Therefore, the public creates a government entity that rules him, enslaves him, controls him, and makes him believe he is free. This is a brilliant phenomenon that was engineered to guide the frightened herds by the few sociopaths that thrive in their parasitic lives as they gain power, wealth, and control over the imbecilic and trusting masses.

Finally, I am not sure how much control will the elite want. We are already profiled, micro- chipped, spied on, and monitored more than East Germany during the Stasi rule or the Soviet Union during Stalin. At what point will enough be enough? Therefore, the public must stop voting and encouraging this charade of pseudo-democracy. Once the vote stops the elites will be exposed and the image will be clear that the United States is run by a dictatorial plutocracy not a democracy. Let the elite elect each other and marry one another to maintain their wealth and influence, and maybe once they achieve the immortality they seek through their money and power they will leave us alone.

Notes

  1. www.ancientegypt.co.uk/gods/explore/osiris.html
  2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis
  3.  Harry Eilenstein: ISIS: Die Geschichte der Göttin von der Steinzeit bis heute. BOD, Norderstedt 2011, ISBN 3-8423-8189-1, p. 9 – 10.
  4. R.E Witt, Isis in the Ancient World, p. 7, 1997, ISBN 978-0-8018-5642-6
  5. Henry Chadwick, The Church in Ancient Society: From Galilee to Gregory the Great, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 526, ISBN 978-0-19-926577-0
  6.  Loverance, Rowena (2007). Christian Art. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press. p. 117. ISBN 978-0-674-02479-3
  7. www.ancientegypt.co.uk/gods/explore/osiris.html
  8. 4. Yasmine Hafiz, (2014). What Is A Caliphate? ISIS Declaration Raises Questions. Huffington’ post June 30, 14
  9. www.dailypaul.com/77379

“The ISIS Leader Does Not Exist”: The US Military’s Stunning Conspiracy Theory Emerges From The Archives

By Tyler Durden
January 20, 2015
Zero Hedge

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Alleged ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Having noted that voter angst has been riled, propagandized, and fear-mongered to the point at which the most pressing priority for Congress is to ‘fix’ terrorism, it is perhaps not entirely surprising that we discover – deep down in the archives – that giving the public someone to ‘hate’ as opposed to something may have been an entire fiction. As The New York Times exposed in 2007Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi, the titular head of the Islamic State, according to Brigadier General Kevin Bergner – the chief American military spokesman at the time – never existed (and was actually a fictional character whose audio-taped declarations were provided by an elderly actor named Abu Adullah al-Naima).

Via The New York Times (2007),

For more than a year, the leader of one the most notorious insurgent groups in Iraq was said to be a mysterious Iraqi named Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi.

As the titular head of the Islamic State in Iraq, an organization publicly backed by Al Qaeda, Baghdadi issued a steady stream of incendiary pronouncements. Despite claims by Iraqi officials that he had been killed in May, Baghdadi appeared to have persevered unscathed.

On Wednesday, a senior American military spokesman provided a new explanation for Baghdadi’s ability to escape attack: He never existed.

Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, the chief American military spokesman, said the elusive Baghdadi was actually a fictional character whose audio-taped declarations were provided by an elderly actor named Abu Adullah al-Naima.

The ruse, Bergner said, was devised by Abu Ayub al-Masri, the Egyptian-born leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who was trying to mask the dominant role that foreigners play in that insurgent organization.

The ploy was to invent Baghdadi, a figure whose very name establishes his Iraqi pedigree, install him as the head of a front organization called the Islamic State of Iraq and then arrange for Masri to swear allegiance to him. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy, sought to reinforce the deception by referring to Baghdadi in his video and Internet statements.

The evidence for the American assertions, Bergner announced at a news briefing, was provided by an Iraqi insurgent: Khalid Abdul Fatah Daud Mahmud al-Mashadani, who was said to have been captured by American forces in Mosul on July 4.

According to Bergner, Mashadani is the most senior Iraqi operative in Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. He got his start in the Ansar al-Sunna insurgent group before joining Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia more than two years ago, and became the group’s “media emir” for all of Iraq. Bergner said that Mashadani was also an intermediary between Masri in Iraq and bin Laden and Zawahiri, whom the Americans assert support and guide their Iraqi affiliate.

“Mashadani confirms that al-Masri and the foreign leaders with whom he surrounds himself, not Iraqis, made the operational decisions” for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, Bergner said.

Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official and a Middle East expert, said that experts had long wondered whether Baghdadi actually existed. “There has been a question mark about this,” he said.

Nonetheless, Riedel suggested that the disclosures made Wednesday might not be the final word on Baghdadi and the leaders of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Even Mashadani’s assertions,Riedel said, might be a cover story to protect a leader who does in fact exist.

“First, they say we have killed him,” Riedel said, referring to the statements by some Iraqi government officials. “Then we heard him after his death and now they are saying he never existed. That suggests that our intelligence on Al Qaeda in Iraq is not what we want it to be.”

American military spokesmen insist they have gotten to the truth on Baghdadi.Mashadani, they say, provided his account because he resented the role of foreign leaders in Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. They say he has not repudiated the organization.

Read more here…

Ironman 3 anyone?

*  *  *

So he was a ghost back then…. is he a ghost again, a propaganda test-tube baby designed purely to put a face on ISIS and the biggest bogeyman of the current global anti-terrorist mania, so necessary to boost global QE in lieu of a world war (for now)?

It’s certainly easier for an average joe to ‘hate’ a demonic leader than an amorphous ‘thing’ called ‘Radical Islam’ – just ask President Obama.