Tag Archives: State Sponsored Terrorism

Obama Plays US Foreign Policy Roulette

By Jim Dean
May 29, 2015
New Eastern Outlook

 

20120307220508964I don’t often get shocked in this business anymore but Obama’s first Arab publication interview with the Ashraq Al-Awsat newspaper did the trick. We took a giant leap from Iran finally being taken off the terrorism list as part of the nuclear talks progression, to being put back on it in what cannot have been an off the cuff remark.

“Iran clearly engages in dangerous and destabilizing behavior in different countries across the region. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism,” he told the newspaper. But he got worse. He used an old Israeli trick, accusing a target of doing what you are doing to them… destabilization with a twist of terrorism thrown in. Iran he says is supporting violent proxies in the region.

I had to pinch myself to make sure it was all not just a bad dream. Here we have the US through the CIA, along with the Saudis and Qatar funding, training and supplying entire terrorist armies in both Syria and Iraq, and he has the gall to call Iran a state sponsor of terror. You just can’t make this stuff up.

And if you want a quick study in the history of America using Islamic terror over several decades, go to William Engdahl’s NEO archive and read his excellent piece, What if Putin is telling the truth. Here is one quote from it, “The Saudi- and CIA-financed Islamic International Brigade was responsible not only for terror in Chechnya. They carried out the October 2002 Moscow Dubrovka Theatre hostage seizure, and the gruesome September 2004 Beslan school massacre.”

For an American president after the first daddy Bush years to call Iran a state sponsor of terror is an outrage, when the victims of American and Saudi terror are hard to count. But the Brits, Israelis, Turks and the French all get honorable mentions.

The Obama staff people that pitched this brain dead idea should be shot, to remove them from the geopolitical gene pool. But statements like this are usually vetted by top people like the chief of staff and the national security advisor, and the top people at the State Department. They can’t all be crazy on the same day.

A lot of damage has been done here at a critical time in the nuclear talks. Allow me to explain. Iran has rightfully been concerned about a step by step removing of the sanctions with the stated reason being the US wants to monitor compliance. Iran had been pushing to keep the IAEA in that role, allowing expanded inspections. Meanwhile, back at the Zionist ranch, nuclear-tipped Israel gets to keep its position of no inspections at all.

Of course Iran’s concern is that the US could use this process to bail out of the agreement anytime it wanted by arbitrarily declaring Iran not in compliance. One example would be if the Republicans won the White House in 2016 and that loophole was open to them, would they wreck all the hard work of the agreement for their Israeli friends?
They would do so in a New York minute. Iran has not been assassinating American nuclear scientists, or hacking our nuclear facilities in a way that could cause a nuclear accident. If someone were to want that done here they would hire the Israelis to do it, as they have a long history of not being prosecuted for espionage here.

Obama is not alone in the shame blame. Congress is just tripping over itself, with one foreign policy humiliation after another. Bibi Netanyahu had them jumping around like the trained seal show at the circus. Our media has rolled over on the terror scams, by not fully reporting what we do, and suppressing real stories like Iran’s 17,000 terror victims, 12,000 of them murdered by the US and Israeli-sponsored MEK.

And there has been no public outcry about our foreign offensive quiver of color revolutions, regime change subversions, and false flag terror attacks, which have exposed innocent Americans to retaliation attacks. In fact, it seems that encouraging retaliation attacks is viewed as providing cover for our own offense.

Our own 9-11 was a glaring example of that. It kicked off a lightening speed removal of basic American freedoms, and a War on Terror that turned into a War OF Terror, including the looting of America by deficit financing in what turned out to be a war on America’s standard of living and future, an ongoing financial terror attack on our pocketbooks.

I have serious concerns over the US’ sincerity in decreasing Iran tensions, especially with this recent Obama political gaff. It was followed by some of the Camp David announcements, as in the US move to put a missile shield up in the Gulf States.

Last I heard they have been buying Patriot missiles for a long time. And if Israel went totally crazy — which all of us understand is certainly possible in Bibi-land — and launched a preemptive strike on Iran, and Iran retaliated, is the Gulf State missile shield really to protect Israel?

The most astounding statement involved selling the UAE “ground to ground missiles”. That would make the UAE a trip-wire offensive threat to Iran. Are the Gulf States being set up to be magnets for Iranian missiles if a shooting war ever developed so US targets would merely be one of many?

Why is it that the Russians are always talking about mutually assured security as a goal when the West, especially the US and Israel, like the preemptive strike doctrine on a target that has no retaliation capability? What country would voluntarily submit to that? Not Russia or China or Iran… and maybe not India, either.

When the West uses the term peace, it seems to mean, “We want to cool things off for a bit until we can find another way to nail you.” We heard the current version of this from the EU on keeping the Russian sanctions in place until the Minsk accords are fulfilled. Not a word was mentioned about Kiev’s troops now shelling civilian areas in Donetsk.
Sure, when Porky Poroshenko made the incredible statement that he wanted to retake the Donetsk airport to rebuild it and put up a monument to all the brave Ukrainian troops who were killed there, John Kerry had to spank him publicly for that. Missed in what was considered a magnanimous, statesmanlike comment from Kerry is that he has never denounced Kiev for its numerous ceasefire violations. Does he think we don’t notice that his saying nothing means America is okay with the violations?

Both the US and EU are playing their respective publics for fools with this “We’ll just blame the Russians for a failed deal.” While the fools in the West are pretending they are in the driver’s seat, Eurasia has observed their sordid behavior and is building another Great Wall against sanctions as fast as they can.

They are also planning mega infrastructure projects to develop their region independently of the West. Maybe what the West doesn’t really like about them is their anti-colonialist attitude. God bless them all for that — and hopefully the rest of us should take a lesson, as we are increasingly being treated like colonial subjects in our own countries.

Jim W. Dean, managing editor for Veterans Today, producer/host of Heritage TV Atlanta, specially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

US-Al Qaeda offensive against Syrian regime

By Patrick Martin
April 29, 2015
World Socialist Web Site

 

In a series of battles in which a group linked to Al Qaeda has fought alongside a group armed and backed by the United States, rebel forces have made significant gains against Syrian Army troops loyal to President Bashar al-Assad, taking control of most of the critical northwestern province of Idlib.

With the fall of city of Jisr al-Shughur Saturday, the remaining government forces in the province are cut off and surrounded, and can only be resupplied by air. Rebel forces captured the provincial capital, the city of Idlib, on March 28, the second of Syria’s 14 provincial capitals to be lost to the Assad regime.

Idlib province occupies a critical strategic position, separating the coastal provinces of Latakia and Tartus, where Assad has a strong political base among the predominately Alawite population (a branch of Shiite Islam), from Aleppo, the country’s largest city and one of the bloodiest battlegrounds of the four-year civil war. According to press reports, rebel forces were only five miles east of the nearest Alawite villages in Latakia province.

Syrian government media reported the fall of Jisr al-Shughur Saturday, and a nearby military base at Qarmeed the following day. The government blamed outside powers, including Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United States, with the state news agency SANA saying that its forces were “facing the terrorist groups flowing in huge numbers through the Turkish border.”

That this claim is not mere propaganda was confirmed by numerous reports in the American and European press, generally hostile to Assad, describing the alliance of Islamists and US-backed “rebels” in the struggle in Idlib province.

The headline of the McClatchy News Service report on the fall of Jisr al-Shughur left nothing to the imagination: “U.S.-backed rebels team with Islamists to capture strategic Syrian city.”

“The latest rebel victory came surprisingly quickly, apparently aided by US-supplied TOW anti-tank missiles,” McClatchy reported, adding, “accounts of the fighting made clear that US-supplied rebel groups had coordinated to some degree with Nusra, which US officials declared a terrorist organization more than two years ago.”

This article cited conflicting claims by “moderate” and Islamist groups about which had played a greater role in the capture of the city. McClatchy noted, “The battle itself was announced by the Fateh Army, an umbrella group that Ahrar al Sham [another Islamist group] and other groups established on March 24, just four days before they and the Nusra Front seized the city of Idlib.”

The rebel-linked television station Orient News reportedly showed video of rebel fighters in the central square of Jisr al-Shughur, raising the black flag that has long been the symbol of Al Qaeda and its affiliated groups. Photographs also appeared of “rebel” trucks bearing poster-sized photos of Osama bin Laden.

The New York Times and Washington Post reported many of the same facts—the fall of Jisr al-Shughur and nearby bases to the offensive of a rebel alliance—but sought to downplay the link between US-backed and Al Qaeda forces, with the Times publishing its article under the headline, “Islamists Seize Control of Syrian City in Northwest.”

McClatchy, citing many local eyewitnesses, described an active fighting alliance between Free Syrian Army forces armed with TOW missiles, destroying nearly a dozen Syrian Army tanks, and Al-Nusra suicide bombers who attacked concentrations of soldiers.

The Times sought to conceal these connections, suggesting that the TOW missiles had fallen into the wrong hands. By its account, “Last year, the United States provided a small number of TOW antitank missiles to some rebel groups. But those groups were largely routed or co-opted by the Nusra Front, further complicating what was already a murky battlefield that has left American officials wary of providing more robust aid to insurgents.”

The Post concentrated on the political benefits of the offensive from the standpoint of the US State Department, suggesting that the military setbacks had dealt a severe blow to the morale of Assad supporters in both Aleppo and the capital city, Damascus. Its account carried the headline, “Assad’s hold on power looks shakier than ever as rebels advance in Syria.”

The Post also glossed over the ties between the US-backed groups and Al Qaeda, writing, “The result has been an unexpectedly cohesive rebel coalition called the Army of Conquest that is made up of al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, an assortment of mostly Islamist brigades and a small number of more moderate battalions.”

The Idlib offensive demonstrates that the claims of successive US governments to be waging a “war on terror” are propaganda lies. Al Qaeda has its origins in the CIA-organized guerrilla warfare in Afghanistan against the Soviet Army and the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul. Osama bin Laden was one of the reactionary anticommunist mujaheddin mobilized for the Afghan struggle along with thousands of other Islamists from throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

Bin Laden broke with his US allies over the influx of American troops into Saudi Arabia during the 1990-91 Gulf War, targeting US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and a US Navy warship near Yemen, and, of course, staging the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

But Al Qaeda forces were later mobilized by the CIA in support of the 2011 US-NATO war against Libya, with many of these fighters then transported to Syria for the fight against Assad. Similarly, Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula, supposedly the most dangerous branch of Al Qaeda in terms of mounting attacks on the United States itself, has become a de facto ally in the US-backed Saudi war against the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

In the Syrian civil war, the relationship between Al Qaeda and US imperialism has been even more complicated. The Al-Nusra Front was formed as the Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda, as part of the mobilization of Islamists who comprise the main fighting force against the Assad regime. Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) emerged in competition with Al-Nusra and publicly broke with Al Qaeda, in pursuit of territorial objectives in both countries.

Obama launched airstrikes last summer against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria, after the group seized control of Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul, and staggered the US puppet regime in Baghdad. Since Al-Nusra and ISIS were engaged in bitter conflicts within Syria, the US became the de facto ally of Al-Nusra, despite protestations to the contrary.

US-Israel Wage War on Iran in Syria

By Tony Cartalucci
April 4, 2015
New Eastern Outlook

 

34267756756The ongoing conflict in Syria has always been a proxy conflict aimed at  Iran, as well as nearby Russia, and more distant China. As far back as 2007, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh warned in his 9-page New Yorker report “The Redirection Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?,” that a region-wide sectarian war was being engineered by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel – all of whom were working in concert even in 2007, to build the foundation of a sectarian militant army.

The report would cite various serving and former US officials who warned that the extremists the West was backing were “preparing for cataclysmic conflict.”

In retrospect, considering the emergence of the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS), Hersh’s warning has turned out to be prophetic. The destabilization of Syria and Lebanon were noted in particular as prerequisites for a coming war with Iran. Confirming this would be the lengthy policy treatise published by the Brookings Institution in 2009 titled, “Which Path to Persia?”

In it, it is openly discussed that regime change for the purpose of establishing regional hegemony is the only goal of the United States and its regional partners, with attempts to frame the conflict with Iran as an issue of “national security” and “global stability” serving as mere canards.

Throughout the document, US policymakers admit that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program are merely one of several pretexts being used to foster political subversion from within and justify war from beyond Iran’s borders.

More importantly, Brookings details explicitly how the US will wage war on Iran, through Israel, in order to maintain plausible deniability. It states specifically under a chapter titled, “Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike,” that:

…the most salient advantage this option has over that of an American air campaign is the possibility that Israel alone would be blamed for the attack. If this proves true, then the United States might not have to deal with Iranian retaliation or the diplomatic backlash that would accompany an American military operation against Iran. It could allow Washington to have its cake (delay Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon) and eat it, too (avoid undermining many other U.S. regional diplomatic initiatives). 

Various diplomatic postures are discussed in consideration of the best formula to mitigate complicity amid a “unilateral” Israeli strike on Iran. Of course, and as the report notes, US-Israeli foreign policy is unified with Israel’s defenses a product of vast and continuous US support. Anything Israel does, therefore, no matter the political or diplomatic facade constructed, it does with America’s full backing – hence the inclusion of “encouraging” in the title of the chapter.

Today, an alleged “fallout” between the US and Israel has been grabbing headlines. Beyond the most superficial of political commentary, there have been no real manifestations of this “fallout.” Israel is still receiving immense aid both military and political from the United States, and Israeli foreign policy is still one with Washington.

The purpose of the feigned “fallout” is to produce room between the US and Israel, so that possible upcoming “unilateral” actions taken by Israel can be disavowed by a “cold” US.

The BBC’s article, “Netanyahu row with Obama administration deepens,” reported that:

A row between the US and Benjamin Netanyahu has deepened, with the Israeli leader accusing America and others of “giving up” on trying to stop Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. The US secretary of state questioned Mr Netanyahu’s judgement on the issue.

This is precisely the political charade implied by the Brookings Institution in their 2009 report as being necessary before any so-called “unilateral” action by Israel could be taken. In reality there is no row, simply a need for establishing plausible deniability ahead of an egregious act of unwarranted, unjust military aggression.

The War on Syria: Containing Iran Before, During, and After Airstrikes 

I6745645333Such theatrics are but one troubling sign that aggression toward Iran is still very much in the cards, that current negotiations are but a smokescreen for preparations to strike Iran anyway regardless of what concession it is willing to make, and that such aggression may take place once the US and its regional partners believe Syria has been reduced to its weakest state possible – if outright regime change is seen as impossible.

Brookings states clearly that:

As the conclusion discusses, an air campaign against Iran’s nuclear sites would likely have to be coupled with a containment strategy—before, during, and especially after the strikes. Containment would be necessary to hinder Iran from reconstituting its nuclear program, prevent it from retaliating against the United States and its allies, and to deal with Iran’s support for violent extremist groups and other anti-status quo activities. 

Admittedly, part of that containment strategy have been attempts to destroy Syria and Lebanon – where the majority of Iran’s regional support is based and where Iran would marshal support from in the immediate aftermath of an unprovoked attack on its territory by US-Israeli aggression.

In addition to propping up terrorists across the region to attack Iran’s allies abroad, the Brookings report dedicated an entire chapter to “Inspiring an Insurgency: Supporting Iranian Minority and Opposition Groups.” Here, Brookings talks about backing the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its military wing, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) – the latter being a verified terrorist organization, previously listed by the US State Department as such, and guilty of killing not only Iranian civilians throughout decades of terrorism, but also US military personal and US civilian contractors.

For those who have difficulties believing the US would back Al Qaeda terrorists for the purpose of overthrowing the governments of Libya, Egypt, and Syria, they need only look at overt and continuous support for MEK terrorists in a bid to overthrow the government of Iran to uncover the reality of Washington’s willingness to sponsor terrorism.

Brookings would openly admit that:

…even if U.S. support for an insurgency failed to produce the overthrow of the regime, it could still place Tehran under considerable pressure, which might either prevent the regime from making mischief abroad or persuade it to make concessions on issues of importance to the United States (such as its nuclear program and support to Hamas, Hizballah, and the Taliban). Indeed, Washington might decide that this second objective is a more compelling rationale for supporting an insurgency than the (much less likely) goal of actually overthrowing the regime.

Brookings describes in exceptional detail how the US would organize its proxy terrorists. It would claim:

Insurgencies take a long time to succeed, when they succeed at all. It takes time for insurgents to identify leaders and recruit personnel, establish bases and gather equipment, and learn tactics and proficiency with weapons. It takes even longer to win popular support, erode the morale of the government’s armed forces, and then undermine the government’s legitimacy. 

It would also claim:

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) could take care of most of the supplies and training for these groups, as it has for decades all over the world. However, Washington would need to decide whether to provide the groups with direct military assistance…

And finally, it would admit:

To protect neighboring countries providing sanctuary to the insurgents. Any insurgency against the Iranian regime would need a safe haven and conduit for arms and other supplies through one or more of Iran’s neighbors. 

This precise strategy has been implemented regarding Syria. Material support for terrorists operating in Syria has been provided for years by the West, with the West’s vast media monopolies providing rhetoric to undermine the legitimacy of the Syrian government, and US-created sanctuaries outside of Syria (primarily in Turkey and Jordan) for terrorists to to seek safe havens in and through which a torrent of arms, cash, equipment, and fighters flow.

When understanding that the war in Syria is but a lead up to a larger conflict with Iran – with a literal signed confession created by US policymakers clearly serving as the foundation for several years of American foreign policy across the Middle East – one begins to understand the urgent imperative incumbent upon those who, for the sake of their own self-preservation, are tasked with stopping it.

Russian and Chinese efforts to obstruct US designs in Syria are about more than selfish regional interests, they are a matter of self-preservation, stopping the conflict in Syria from spilling into Iran next, southern Russia afterwards, and eventually enveloping western China as well.

That the US has committed itself to fueling chaos in Syria despite the unlikelihood of actually overthrowing the government in Damascus, costing tens of thousands of innocent people their lives, illustrates the callousness of US foreign policy, highlighting that Western sponsorship of terrorism around the world constitutes perhaps the most egregious, continuous, and most horrifically demonstrable threat to global peace and stability in our age.

As the US and Israel conduct their latest diplomatic charade, a harbinger of even more chaos to come, those concerned must read the policy papers of the West and understand the true nature of their methodology if ever they hope to expose it and stop it.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.

Rebranding Al-Qaeda’s Jabhat Al Nusra as “Moderates”

By Maram Susl
March 23, 2015
New Eastern Outlook

 

Al-Nusra-Front-in-SyriaThe CIA backed and armed Syrian rebel group, Hazm brigade disbanded and its members have defected to Al Qaeda linked Jabhat Al Nusra (JAN) and ISIS. Hazm brigade also left behind a warehouse of US provided weapons, including anti-tank TOW missiles, which JAN has seized. With no one left to arm against the Syrian state but JAN, the US State Department has attempted to rebrand JAN as a non-Al Qaeda moderate force. The next step of the plan is to allow US proxy Qatar to openly arm JAN. However, the audacious campaign has so far been an abysmal failure.

Hazm Brigade Provided Plausible Deniability

The latest defection and disbanding was not the first time that the US backed Hazm brigade had handed over US provided weapons to Al Qaeda, the last incident occurring in December of 2014. It was previously asserted that the US administration advertised the ‘moderate’ Hazm brigade in order to maintain plausible deniability whilst knowing the heavy weapons they provide, such as anti-tank missiles, would eventually end up in the hands of Al Qaeda.

Indeed, former-US ambassador Robert Ford recently admitted through his twitter account to Syrian journalist Edward Dark, that the US knew the Syrian rebels they were backing were allied to Al Qaeda. With the announcement that Hazm brigade had disbanded, the State Department has lost their cover to aid al Qaeda whilst maintaining plausible deniability.

Rebranding Al Qaeda

NATO media has acknowledged that JAN is the most powerful group fighting the Syrian state besides ISIS. JAN also have widespread support amongst all other insurgents groups in Syria. Given the level at which the US has committed itself to an anti-ISIS narrative, they have little left to paint as a moderate force but JAN. Though, the US has launched strikes against JAN in one instance, earning the ire of all Syrian insurgent groups who protested “We are all JAN”. Suggestions to train a new insurgent group from scratch have been called unrealistic. Hence NATO media has been running a PR campaign for JAN’s new found moderation.

The New York Times suggested that JAN may ‘cut ties with Al Qaeda in the hope of receiving more military aid”. Reuters reported that if the group were to lose its Al Qaeda ties that Gulf states could provide more support openly.

“Sources in the group have said it was considering severing its ties to al Qaeda, a move that could result in more support from Gulf Arab states hostile to both Assad and Islamic State.”

The word of “more” tentatively suggests the New York Times and Reuters acknowledge that Gulf states have already provided some support to Al Qaeda in the past.

BBC analysis written by Dr. David Roberts, suggested that Qatar funding and arming JAN (Al Nusra Front) may be a good thing. In an article titled “Is Qatar bringing the Nusra Front in from the cold?” he writes,

“Secondly, the Nusra Front has pledged to concentrate its efforts on removing the Bashar al-Assad government, as opposed to attacking the “far enemy” (ie Western states). On this point, the Nusra Front is aligned tightly with Qatar, which also is implacably against the government and fundamentally believes that the situation in Syria will only improve if he is removed.This is why Qatar is hoping to bring the Nusra Front in from the cold. If the state can get the group to eschew its al-Qaeda affiliation and adhere to a broadly moderate Islamist platform, Qatar can officially commence, with Western blessing, the supply of one of the most effective fighting forces in Syria.”

The IBtimes downplayed JAN’s ties to Al Qaeda, stating:

“Though JAN is al Qaeda’s only branch in Syria, the group often downplays its role in al Qaeda Central’s long-term plan to establish an Islamic “emirate” in favour of marketing itself as a Syria-centric opposition group focused on the revolution and overthrowing Assad.”

Finally, In an article headlined “Accepting Al Qaeda,” the Council of Foreign Affairs (CFR) advised that the US must keep ‘Al Qaeda afloat to contain ISIS’’. Unlike other articles, the CFR doesn’t bother to suggest that JAN drop their Al Qaeda affiliations, instead suggesting the US should accept them in spite of their Al Qaeda affiliations. This would be the second time the CFR would recommend the US make friends with Al Qaeda. They had previously labeled the Ahrar Al Sham insurgent group “Al Qaeda worth befriending”. The CFR is considered to be US’s “most influential foreign-policy think tank”. In 2009, Hillary Clinton welcomed the fact that the CFR had set up an outpost down the street from the State Department, saying “I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing.”

A Difficult Task

It was always going to be a difficult task to convince the American people to support a group they have been constantly told was responsible for the death of thousands of US soldiers and civilians. They were reminded by their own government every year to “never forget 9/11” and their young men were sent to die to avenge the incident, now they are being asked to forget just that.

But the task of rebranding JAN has been fraught with other difficulties, the main being that Al Nusra is not co-operating with the US-Qatari plan. In an angry statement, JAN denied US media reports that they were breaking ties with Al Qaeda. The AFP wrote that JAN had rejected “any plan to break away [from Al Qaeda ] and become a more internationally acceptable rebel force.”

But the AFP falls short of explaining how dropping a label would make JAN more internationally acceptable and no longer a ‘terrorist’ organisation. When ISIS shed it’s al Qaeda label, it did not stop ethnically cleansing minorities or beheading Syrian soldiers. Al Qaeda is after all just label, it is practically an imaginary organisation with practically the only men on the ground being the insurgents of JAN. Al Qaeda is more of an ideological affiliation, rather than an affiliation to a real organisation

The very fact that the NATO run media suggests changing JAN’s label would make them moderate, illustrates that the only distinction between the Al Qaeda and those groups NATO media calls moderate, is nothing but a label. They have very little ideological differences and commit equally abhorrent war crimes. Further illustrating this is, the fact that the Hazm brigade fighters found it easy to defect to JAN and ISIS and shows that the ‘moderate’ fighters had little trouble embracing Al Qaeda’s ideology.

Another difficulty is while Jabhat Al Nusra was condemned as a terrorist organisation, NATO run media was allowed to report on their war crimes. It is difficult to run a PR campaign for a group that has claimed responsibility for many car bombings which targeted civilians. It was also widely reported that Jabhat Al Nusra kidnapped UN peace keepers and later taunted them with the heads of murdered Syrian soldiers. Just like ISIS, JAN has been busy destroying Syria’s historical sites, though unlike the case with ISIS it was under-reported across NATO run media.

In 2012, it became increasingly obvious the Syrian state was fighting a sectarian and religiously motivated insurgency that was linked to Al Qaeda. It is possible that the US labeled JAN a terrorist organisation, as it needed a scapegoat to pin all rebel warcrimes on and to with which to set apart other insurgent groups. The policy may have backfired when JAN grew to be the main insurgent group fighting the Syrian state. During this time the US no longer needed JAN to act as the scapegoat as ISIS rose to fill in that role.

Indeed it also required for the US to label at least one insurgent group as a terrorists organisation, in order to pursue a long term objective of fighting a perpetual war “on terror”. However, the time frame of the rise of JAN seems to be inconvenient for the United States. Such a narrative shift was likely meant to occur after the successful over throw of the Syrian government. Creating terror to overthrow a government and then going back in to fight it, has been the template which was applied to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. But unlike in Iraq and Libya, the Syrian government remains firmly in place. As a result the US has been forced to pursue two conflicting policies and narratives at once, fighting terror and funding terror.

Apart from perpetual war, the rise of Al Qaeda linked groups better suits other long term US objectives. Such groups are more fundamentally opposed to Hezbollah, Iran and Russia. They are also more likely to pursue a policy of ethnic cleansing which would more easily lead to balkanisation. Finally the advantage of a mostly Al Qaeda force is that it is cheaper to run, as they are funded mostly by Gulf states who launder money through donations to pro-Al Qaeda Wahabi mosques. The US may find it easier to convince Qatar to foot the entire bill for the insurgency, arguing that they can’t do so whilst maintaining plausible deniability. It is interesting to note that, some Hazm brigade members believe the US set them up to fail by not providing them enough resources. Perhaps Hazm brigade were always left in a state weaker than JAN so that JAN would be able to loot the TOW missile arsenal, but perhaps JAN killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

One of the biggest hurdles in the plan to allow Qatar to openly fund JAN arises from the fact the the UN Security Council has already condemned and sanctioned both JAN and ISIS, unanimously adopting a Russian-drafted resolution. This effectively makes it illegal to fund JAN under international law. But there have already been accusations of US-ally Qatar sponsoring JAN and Qatar has done little to deny them.

The Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamid II, told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that there are groups that the US considered terrorists in Syria which Qatar does not, avoiding naming JAN outright. UK Prime Minister David Cameron and Washington have gone as far as to admit that individuals in Qatar were also bank rolling ISIS, perhaps as a means of blackmailing their Qatari ally in the future. Qatar was able to openly transfer millions to JAN, under the guise of paying ransom for abducted nuns and UN peacekeepers. BBC analyst Dr David Roberts does not question Qatar’s ties to JAN but, referred to the hostage taking as ‘JAN helping Qatar release hostages’.

Whilst Qatar has provided funding to JAN in the past, openly arming JAN would allow Qatar to transfer a lot more money and perhaps heavier weaponry through the US. But without first removing JAN off the UN sanctions list it would be too difficult for the UN to ignore. Though there have been set backs to the US-Qatar open arming plan, they may continue trying in the coming weeks. Regardless, funding for JAN and the insurgency is not going to dry up any time soon, with or without plausible deniability.

Maram Susli also known as “Syrian Girl,” is an activist-journalist and social commentator covering Syria and the wider topic of geopolitics. especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.

 

How the U.S. Is Allied with ISIS & Al Qaeda

By Eric Zuesse
March 20, 2015
Washington’s Blog

 

isil-usal-media-realityThe United States is allied with Sunni Moslem aristocracies (and therefore with Sunni-headed nations), against Shia Moslem aristocracies (and therefore also against Shia-headed nations). Sunni aristocracies provide the huge ($1 million and larger) financial donations that sustain ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other jihadist armed movements, commonly called “terrorists.” 

Islamic terrorism is virtually entirely a phenomenon of Sunni Islam, and the U.S. is allied with the aristocracies that fund it. 

The only major Shia organization that is even slightly comparable to those Sunni terrorist organizations is Hezbollah, which is based in Lebanon and answers to Shia Iran; but, as wikipedia has noted: 

“The Gulf Cooperation Council,[15] Canada,[16] and Israel[17] have classified Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, though in 2015 an assessment from the U.S. director of National Intelligence removed it from its list of terror threats.[18] The European Union and New Zealand have proscribed Hezbollah’s military wing, but do not list Hezbollah as a whole as a terrorist organization.[19][20] “

The Gulf Cooperation Council, Canada, and Israel, are all, like the Sunni aristocracies are, U.S.-allied, not Russia-allied. They all want Hezbollah to be thought of as if it were like Al Qaeda, etc., so as to be able to hide the U.S. aristocracy’s alliance with the very same aristocrats who are funding global jihad, but they know that it’s just a lie. They know that global jihadism is essentially just a Sunni movement, which has its roots in the U.S.-Saudi alliance backing of the Mujahideen guerillas in Afghanistan during 1979-1989, as part of the West’s war against communism, which war now turns out to have been actually, in the real intent of the U.S. aristocracy, a still-ongoing war against Russia, because America’s NATO military alliance has continued on, long after the U.S.S.R.’s Warsaw Pact military alliance dissolved and ended entirely in 1991. Every single moment of NATO’s continued existence beyond that moment in time has been a clear indication that America’s aristocracy hope actually to conquer Russia — that anti-communism was, for them, just an excuse for their war to conquer the U.S.S.R., a war which is now raging hot again in the very bloody Ukrainian anti-Russian coup and follow-on Ukrainian civil war, and with preparations on both sides for an outright nuclear war between NATO and Russia. Because it’s all based on lies.

Islamic terrorism is allied with the U.S., not with Russia. (Russia experiences it in places like Chechnia.) Sunni extremists were even key U.S.-Saudi tools in weakening Russia and ending the U.S.S.R. This (and especially the Saudi aristocracy’s funding of Al Qaeda) is the reason why the U.S. White House refuses to allow the blocked 28 pages of the U.S. Senate’s Feinstein terrorism/torture report to be made public. The U.S. White House is, and has been at least since 2000, and maybe even before that, controlled by the U.S. aristocracy, no longer by the public. The U.S. Federal Government is, already, a dictatorship — actual rule by the country’s aristocracy or “oligarchs” — no authentic democracy anymore. This is a scientifically proven fact. Democracy in this country is now merely mythological, whatever the case might possibly have been before (when there were unfortunately no rigorous scientific studies yet regarding the question).

Sunni Islam is comprised of the Wahhabi variety and its offshoots, and it is comparable, in the Christian context, to fundamentalist or literalist Christianity, the extremist form of its own faith. That’s what the U.S. has been allied with after 1945.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is negotiationg with Iran about far more than Iran’s nuclear program. Iran is the world’s leading Shiite Muslim nation, just as America’s ally since 1945 Saudi Arabia is the world’s leading Sunni Muslim nation; and there is a global conflict between Shia and Sunni Islam, just as there had been in the past a global conflict between Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity. Even within the same religion, history is full of very bloody and lengthy wars between contending sects. It’s rather normal.

Above all: Iran is Shia, and has therefore been allied with Russia, the country that Obama’s Administration (including Kerry) are seeking to destroy. An inevitable part of Kerry’s negotiations with Iran is to turn Iran against Russia; it would be a geostrategic sea-change.

In the Arabic world, the standard variety of Islam is Sunni; and all of the royal families are Sunni, even in Shiite Bahrain, where the Sunni al-Khalifa family basically imprison the public, who are Shia, in their country, and they do it with American military support, so that without the U.S. there would be no Sunni dictatorship in Bahrain, at all. The al-Khalifas pay U.S. ‘news’ media to not cover the barbaric means they employ to subdue their population. The United States is no friend to democracy; it often imposes dictatorship, and Bahrain is the best example of this, because it is so brutal. However, the mirror-image of that on the Russian-allied side is in the Shite-led Sunni-majority nation of Syria. The only difference is that, if the Alawite Shiite dictatorship in Syria gets overthrown, it will be replaced by Sunni terrorists — which would be far worse. But that’s what Obama evidently wants — if he is to be judged by his actions and not by his words.

On Wednesday, March 18th, Iran’s Fars News Agency headlined “Iraqi Commander: Tapped Communications Confirms US Aids to ISIL,” and opened as follows:

A commander of Iraq’s popular forces disclosed that wiretapping of ISIL’s communications has confirmed the reports that the US planes have been airdropping food and arms supplies for the Takfiri terrorists.

“The wiretapped ISIL communications by Iraqi popular forces have revealed that the US planes have been dropping weapons and foodstuff for the Takfiri terrorist group,” Commander of Iraq’s Ali Akbar Battalion told FNA on Wednesday.

He noted that tapping on ISIL disclosed the terrorist group’s regular contacts with the US army, and said, “They exchanged sentences like if they would have a share of the ammunition dropped near (Spiker Military Base) or responses such as ‘you will also receive your share’.”

“The US forces by dropping weapons and ammunition for ISIL, specially in Yassreb, Al-Ramadi and near Spiker Base in Hay al-Qadessiya have provided a lot of help to the ISIL,” he added.

Many similar reports by Iraqi officials and forces have surfaced in the last few months.

In February, an Iraqi provincial official lashed out at the western countries and their regional allies for supporting Takfiri terrorists in Iraq, revealing that the US airplanes still continue to airdrop weapons and foodstuff for the ISIL terrorists.

On March 2nd, I headlined “Obama Prioritizes Weakening Russia, Over Weakening ISIS,” and linked to a news report from Michael Snyder the day before, titled “Is Barack Obama Actually Trying to Help … ISIS … Take Over Syria?” which concluded in the affirmative, because the air-drops of weapons were specifically into areas that were firmly under the control of ISIS. I placed this into the broader context of Obama’s overriding foreign-policy objective: weakening or even destroying Russia.

So: the U.S. President is not only dropping bombs onto some ISIS positions, but is dropping weapons onto others — so that they can in turn fire weapons to weaken the Shiite Assad in Syria and the Shiite regime in Iraq.

George W. Bush was allied with Sunni aristocracies, and so is Barack Obama. That’s because Sunni aristocracies, like the American aristocracy, aim, above all, to destroy Russia.

The only Russia-friendly Sunni dictator was Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi; and, as Hillary Clinton proudly and joyously said of him after bombing to hell his forces, “We came, we saw, he died.”

On 17 April 2014 in the London Review of Books, Seymour Hersh bannered “The Red Line and the Rat Line,” and he reported that after eliminating Gaddafi, the Obama Administration arranged to transfer from Libya into Syria the Libyan sarin that the Obama Administration claimed Bashar al-Assad’s forces in Syria had created and fired during 19 March 2013 onto the Syrian village of Khan al-Assal, and which gas-attack Obama was trying to use as a ‘justification’ for bombing Assad’s forces in the Syrian civil war — which a proposal from Russia caused to be canceled.

Although the United States Government pretends to be opposed to terrorism, the United States Government is also the global leader in militarily supporting the aristocracies that fund terrorism; and is, in the final analysis, more of a friend than a foe of terrorist organizations, because Russia is allied with the Shiite side in the Sunni-v.-Shiite conflict, and the U.S. is allied with the Sunni side — the side that sponsors terrorism and that supplies almost all of the actual terrorist fighters.

This explains a lot of the inconsistencies and absurdities in U.S. Government allegations about terrorism and its causes.

The U.S. is a crucial sponsor of terrorism, but only in the shadows, because our aristocracy provide the military muscle that retains in power the Arabic aristocrats who — also in the shadows — actually finance terrorists (and who pay them very well, it seems).

What the U.S. Government alleges in international relations today has just about as much reason to be believed as did the statements by Adolf Hitler’s German Government about international relations during the 1930s and ‘40s; and the U.S. actually has adopted and refined many of that Government’s propaganda-tactics. As a consequence, the predominant view that the American public has of what’s happening in international matters is dangerously false. It will benefit the few at the very top, each one of whom knows personally virtually every other one — and whose lawyers are constantly dealing with each other to negotiate the details — and whose deals are almost always made in private, even deals that determine which politician will be backed and become a government official, and which particular office that he or she will hold. Hiring the top executives, who hire all other people, at the think tanks, and at the ‘news’ media, shapes the way the public sees public affairs, and it also shapes their votes. These things can be arranged — and they are arranged; they are manipulated.

The world’s richest 0.7% own 13.7 times as much as the world’s poorest 68.7%. They spend enough of it buying controlling interests in the significant ’news’ media and endowing tax-free foundations and think tanks, so that the ‘authoritative reality’ will be what they want it to be; and, when the public sees it and believes it, politicians will likeliest win who don’t contradict the aristocratically shaped ‘reality.’

And this is the reason why, at least in the United States, aristocrats control the Government. It’s not mysterious; it’s just secret. It’s the way things actually are, rather than the way they are propagandized to be. The actual government isn’t publicly seen. 

And what are the people at the top actually like? Scientific studies find that successful people tend to be bad. The people at the top tend to be psychopaths. And, of course, psychopaths tend to be very good liars.

So: it all makes sense, when you stop to think about it. But unfortunately, few people do.

———-

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.

Breaking the Resistance with Terrorism and Proxy Wars

By Eric Draitser
March 17, 2015
New Eastern Outlook

 

S8885544332With the situation in the Middle East seemingly spinning out of control, many political observers are left wondering what it all means. The war in Syria has been at the forefront of the news since 2011, and rightly so, as Syria has become the epicenter of a larger regional conflict, particularly with the ascendance of ISIS in the last year.

Undoubtedly, the mainstream acceptance of the ISIS threat has changed the strategic calculus vis-à-vis Syria, as the US prepares to launch yet another open-ended war, ostensibly to defeat it. And, while many in the West are willing to buy the ISIS narrative and pretext for war, they do so with little understanding or recognition of the larger geopolitical contours of this conflict. Essentially, almost everyone ignores the fact that ISIS and Syria-Iraq is only one theater of conflict in the broader regional war being waged by the US-NATO-GCC-Israel axis. Also of vital importance is an understanding of the proxy war against Iran (and all Shia in the region), being fomented by the very same terror and finance networks that have spread the ISIS disease in Syria.

In attempting to unravel the complex web of relations between the terror groups operating throughout the region, important commonalities begin to emerge. Not only are many of these groups directly or tangentially related to each other, their shadowy connections to western intelligence bring into stark relief an intricate mosaic of terror that is part of a broader strategy of sectarianism designed to destroy the “Axis of Resistance” which unites Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah. In so doing, these terror groups and their patrons hope to internationalize the war in Syria, and its destructive consequences.

Terrorism as a Weapon in Syria and Iraq

In order to understand how these seemingly disparate groups fit into the regional destabilization, one must first recognize how they are connected both in terms of ideology and shared relationships. On the one hand you have the well known terror outfits operating in the Syria-Iraq theater of this conflict. These would include the ubiquitous ISIS, along with its Al Qaeda-affiliated ally Jabhat Al-Nusra.

However, often left out of the western narrative is the fact that the so called “moderate rebels,” such as the Al Farouq Brigade and other similar groups affiliated with the “Free Syrian Army,” are also linked through various associations with a number of jihadi organizations in Syria and beyond. These alleged “moderates” have been documented as having committed a number of egregious war crimes including mutilation of their victims, and cross-border indiscriminate shelling. And these are the same “moderates” that the Obama Administration spent the last three years touting as allies, as groups worthy of US weapons, to say nothing of the recent revelations of cooperation with US air power. But of course US cooperation with these extremist elements is only the tip of the iceberg.

A recent UN report further corroborated the allegations that Israeli military and/or Mossad is cooperating with, and likely helping to organize, the Jabhat al-Nusra organization in and around the Golan Heights. Such claims of course dovetail with the reports from Israeli media that militant extremists fighting the Syrian government have been treated in Israeli medical facilities. Naturally, these clandestine activities carried out by Israel should be combined with the overt attacks on Syria carried out by Tel Aviv, including recent airstrikes, which despite the inaction of the UN and international community, undeniably constitute a war crime.

Beyond the US and Israel however, other key regional actors have taken part in the destabilization and war on Syria. Turkey has provided safe haven for terrorists streaming into Syria to wage war against the legally recognized government of President Assad. In cooperation with the CIA and other agencies, Turkey has worked diligently to foment civil war in Syria in hopes of toppling the Assad government, thereby allowing Ankara to elevate itself to a regional hegemon, or so the thinking of Erdogan and Davutoglu goes. Likewise, Jordan has provided training facilities for terrorists under the guidance and tutelage of “instructors” from the US, UK, and France.

But why rehash all these well-documented aspects of the destabilization and war on Syria? Simple. In order to fully grasp the regional dimension and global implications of this conflict, one must place the Syria war in its broader geopolitical context, and understand it as one part of a broader war on the “Axis of Resistance.” For, while Hezbollah and certain Iranian elements have been involved in the fighting and logistical support in Syria, another insidious threat has emerged – a renewed terror war against Iran in its Sistan and Baluchestan province in the east.

Rekindling the Proxy War against Iran

As the world’s attention has been understandably fixed upon the horrors of Syria, Iraq, and Libya, a new theater in the regional conflict has come to the forefront – Iran; specifically, Iran’s eastern Sistan and Baluchestan province, long a hotbed of separatism and anti-Shia terror, where a variety of terror groups have operated with the covert, and often overt, backing of western and Israeli intelligence agencies.

Just in the last year, there have been numerous attacks on Iranian military and non-military targets in the Sistan and Baluchestan region, attacks carried out by a variety of groups. Perhaps the most well known instance occurred in March 2014 when five Iranian border guards were kidnapped – one was later executed – by Jaish al-Adl which, according to the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium is:

an extremist Salafi group that has since its foundation claimed responsibility for a series of operations against Iran’s domestic security forces and Revolutionary Guards operating in Sistan and Balochistan province, including the detonation of mines [link added] against Revolutionary Guards vehicles and convoys, kidnapping of Iranian border guards and attacks against military bases… Jaish al-Adl is also opposed to the Iranian Government’s active support of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which they regard as an attack on Sunni muslims…Jaish ul-Adl executes cross border operations between the border of Iran and Pakistan and is based in the Baluchistan province in Pakistan.

It is important to note the centrality of Iran’s support for Syria and the Syrian Arab Army (and of course Hezbollah) in the ideological framework of a group like Jaish al-Adl. Essentially, this terror group sees their war against the Iranian government as an adjunct of the war against Assad and Syria – a new front in a larger war. Of course, the sectarian aspect should not be diminished as this group, like its many terrorist cousins, makes no distinction between political and religious/sectarian divisions. A war on Iran is a war on Shia, and both are just, both are legitimate.

Similarly, the last 18 months have seen the establishment of yet another terror group known as Ansar al-Furqan – a fusion of the Balochi Harakat Ansar and Pashto Hizb al-Furqan, both of which had been operating along Iran’s eastern border with Pakistan. According to the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium:

They characterize themselves as Mujahideen aginst [sic] the Shia government in Iran and are linked to Katibat al Asad Al ‘Ilamiya; Al-Farooq activists; al Nursra Front (JN), Nosrat Deen Allah, Jaysh Muhammad, Jaysh al ‘Adal; and though it was denied for some time, appears to have at least personal relationships with Jundallah…The stated mission of Ansar al Furqan is ” to topple the Iranian regime…”

Like its terrorist cousin Jaish al-Adl, Ansar al-Furqan has claimed responsibility for a number of attacks against the Iranian Government, including a May 2014 IED attack on a freight train belonging to government forces. While such attacks may not make a major splash in terms of international attention, they undoubtedly send a message heard loud and clear in Tehran: these terrorists and their sponsors will stop at nothing to destroy the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Two inescapable facts immediately come to the fore when examining these groups. On the one hand, they are Sunni extremists whose ultimate goal is the destruction of the Iranian state and all vestiges of Shia dominance, political, military or otherwise. On the other hand, these groups see their war against Iran as part and parcel of the terror wars on Syria and Iraq.

And then of course there’s Jundallah, the notorious terror organization lead for decades by the Rigi family. Anyone with even cursory knowledge of the group is undoubtedly aware of its long-standing ties to both US and Israeli intelligence. As Foreign Policy magazine reported in 2012, Israeli Mossad and US CIA operatives essentially competed with one another for control of the Jundallah network for years. This information of course directly links these agencies with the covert war against Iran going back years, to say nothing of the now well-known role of Israeli intelligence in everything from assassinations of Iranian scientists to the use of cyberweapons such as Stuxnet and Flame. These and other attacks by Israel and the US against Iranian interests constitute a major part of the dirty war against Iran – a war in which terror groups figure prominently.

It should be noted that a number of other terror outfits have been used through the decades in the ongoing “low-intensity” war against Iran, including the infamous Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a terrorist group hailed as heroes by the US neocon establishment. Thanks to Wikileaks, it also now documented fact that Israel has long since attempted to use Kurdish groups such as PJAK (Iraqi Kurdish terror group) to wage continued terror war against Iran for the purposes of destabilization of the government. Additionally, there was a decades-long campaign of Arab separatism in Iran’s western Khuzestan region spearheaded by British intelligence. As Dr. Kaveh Farrokh and Mahan Abedin wrote in 2005, “there is a mass of evidence that connects the British secret state to Arab separatism in Iran.”

These and other groups, too numerous to name here, represent a part of the voluminous history of subversion against Iran. But why now? What is the ultimate strategy behind these seemingly disparate geopolitical machinations?

Encircling the Resistance in Order to Break It

To see the obvious strategic gambit by the US-NATO-GCC-Israel axis, one need only look at a map of the major conflicts mentioned above. Syria has been infiltrated by countless terrorist groups that have waged a brutal war against the Syrian government and people. They have used Turkey in the North, Jordan in the South, and to a lesser degree Lebanon and, indirectly, Israel in the West. Working in tandem with the ISIS forces originating in Iraq, Syria has been squeezed from all sides in hopes that military defeat and/or the internal collapse of the Syrian government would be enough to destroy the country.

Naturally, this strategy has necessarily drawn Hezbollah into the war as it is allied with Syria and, for more practical reasons, cannot allow a defeated and broken Syria to come to fruition as Hezbollah would then be cut off from their allies in Iran. And so, Hezbollah and Syria have been forced to fight on no less than two fronts, fighting for the survival of the Resistance in the Levant.

Simultaneously, the regional power Iran has made itself into a central player in the war in Syria, recognizing correctly that the war could prove disastrous to its own security and regional ambitions. However, Tehran cannot simply put all its energy into supporting and defending Syria and Hezbollah as it faces its own terror threat in the East. The groups seeking to topple the Iranian government may not be able to compete militarily with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, but they can certainly create enough destabilization through terrorism to make it more difficult for Tehran to effectively aid in the fight in Syria.

The US-NATO-GCC-Israel alliance has not needed to put its own boots on the ground to achieve its strategic objectives. Instead, it is relying on irregular warfare, proxy terror wars, and small-scale destabilizations to achieve by stealth what it cannot achieve with military might alone.

But it remains paramount for all those interested in peace to make these connections, to understand the broad outlines of this vast covert war taking place. To see a war in Syria in isolation is to misunderstand its very nature. To see ISIS alone as the problem is to completely misread the essence of the conflict. This is a battle for regional hegemony, and in order to attain it, the Empire is employing every tool in the imperial toolkit, with terrorism being one of the most effective.

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”.

ISIS Terrorists: The US Creates them, Turkey Trains them, Qatar Finances them

By Dr. Mohamed Elmasry
March 15, 2015
The Canadian Charger, March 8, 2015

 

isil-usal-media-realityWe used to believe it is a crime to organize, support and give political cover to terrorist organizations. Things have changed.

“If the (American) Joint Chiefs are liable to stand trial for crimes against humanity, so is the President – and of course those who fund, train, and collude with ISIS and its kind, including Turkey, Qatar, and the Muslim Brotherhood,” James Lewis wrote in the February 26, 2015 American Thinker.

Lewis added:

“… the Obama administration’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood, with its penetration of essentially all our government agencies, including the Department of Defense, has had an adverse impact on our policies, particularly with regard to the Middle East and the global war on terrorism… The Joint Chiefs of Staff know that what we are doing today in Iraq and Syria to defeat the Islamic State is wrong. By their acquiescence to the administration’s half-hearted war policies, they cannot escape being held accountable for the genocide the Islamic State will inflict on the Syrian inhabitants of Kobani, the Kurds and other minorities.” (Italics by Lewis).

The terrorist army of the Islamic State (also called ISIS and ISIL) is made up of foreigners, mainly Muslims. But a good number of non-Muslims with military experience are also populating its higher ranks. A British woman was recently shamed to learn that her non-Muslim brother, an ex-British army officer, had joined IS forces. She isn’t alone.

Many people do not know or have forgotten (it’s been kept very quiet) that the IS army was created four years ago by the US to topple the regime of Syrian dictator Bashir Al-Assad.

Few are also aware that Turkey, Syria’s northern neighbor, is ruled by a Muslim Brotherhood majority government. As a NATO member, Turkey has long provided recruitment, intelligence, training and armaments (including a daily flow of ammunition and spare parts) on behalf of US interests.  Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan, which also border on Syria, did not offer these convenient services to the US.

Qatar, a tiny but wealthy Arab state with the largest naval American base in the region, was also very willing to provide generous financing.

Qatar provided another important “service” – propaganda – in the form of a recruitment campaign to convince Muslims that fighting in Syria is a “Jihad” against the infidels, meaning all Syrians. As a result, more than 10 million have fled that country during the past four years; numerous other citizens are internally displaced.

Egyptian-born Qatari Sheikh Youssef Qaradawi, spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, issued the necessary fatwa and on Qatari TV channel Al-Jazeera, where he not only publicly blessed the terrorist campaign against Syria, but also urged Muslims everywhere to join the Islamic State.

IS recruits began flowing in from as far north as Canada and as far south as Malaysia, passing easily into Turkey. There, they were greeted like friends by Turkish intelligence, received training and indoctrination, and were then handed over to Turkish officers in the field.

So this bizarre behind-the-scenes American terror campaign against Syria was going very well, with IS receiving committed and aggressive international recruits. With Qatari financing, American equipment and Turkish training, it was like a marriage made in heaven. Although the Syrian army and security forces were exhausted, however, they were still not defeated.

But then problems arose in this clever scheme.

IS militants started beheading Westerners and using the universal reach of social media to ensure that the whole world could see the grisly killings. And some of the terrorists recruited to the IS cause did not die as martyrs and go straight to Heaven; instead, they began returning to their home countries, some with major disillusionment.

At that point the US had to show the international community that it was against IS, yet it never moved to prevent Turkey and Qatar from continuing to recruit, train, arm and finance IS fighters.

On March 6 the Deputy Inspector General of Malaysia’s police said in the New Straits Times, “with the help of international enforcement agencies, we had identified more than 60 Malaysians who had joined IS militants in Syria.” He added that any Malaysians involved would be arrested and investigated on their return.

The case of IS terrorists going home to other countries, including Canada, is quite similar. It won’t be back to life-as-usual for anyone picked up through more vigilant screening at the borders.

After four years of primary involvement in organizing, recruiting, training, arming, financing, and providing the necessary religious and political cover for the IS terror campaign in Syria, the US continues to play its self-appointed role as a morally upright champion of justice on the international stage – even while operating similarly in Libya and Egypt.

But its innocence is wearing thin. The Obama administration looked downright disingenuous last month when the White House, after giving terrorism such generous undercover help, hosted a Feb. 18-19 Summit on Countering Violence and Extremism.

Something is very wrong with this picture.

Dr. Mohamed Elmasry, an Egyptian-born Canadian, is a Professor of Computer Engineering at the University of Waterloo. He can be reached at elmasry@thecanadiancharger.com

How ISIS Became the Face of Evil

The Islamic State’s Gruesome Propaganda Serves Its Purposes Well, and Those of the United States Too

By Arun Gupta
March 12, 2015
Counter Punch

 

To really combat terror, end support for Saudi ArabiaTwelve years after the United States invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, it’s easy to forget that support for the war hinged on the demonization of dictator Saddam Hussein. Weapons of mass destruction may have been the motive and the September 11 attacks provided the opportunity, but it was years of media portrayals of Hussein as worse than Hitler that enabled the Bush administration to rally elite and public support for the war.

By the time Hussein was dispatched in December 2006 after a show trial and botched execution, Washington had found a new face of evil in the form of religiously motivated resistance to the Occupation. The shift was remarkable. The enemy seamlessly transitioned from Hussein, whose roots were as a modernist authoritarian socialist, to al-Qaeda offshoots, which tend to be medieval fundamentalists.

This shift reveals how all sides in the “war on terror” use propaganda to shape the perception of the war and even the battlefield itself. Propaganda, though, is a one-way question for the West where commentators obsess over media produced by the Islamic State. Often referred to as ISIS, the extremist group regularly releases videos of mass beheadings, immolations, and parading prisoners in cages.

ISIS has honed an image at once terrifying, effective, dedicated, and vengeful. It uses it to draw recruits from the West, financing from wealthy Gulf State patrons, and the allegiance of militants from Egypt to Indonesia. But ISIS’s real skill is in exploiting power vacuums in Iraq, Syria, and Libya resulting from Western intervention and weak sectarian states. Likewise, its propaganda is a reflection of and response to the West, mainly the atrocities the United States has inflicted upon Iraq and other countries in the region.

Of course, this is not a contest of equals. The United States is a global power, and ISIS is little more than a paper tiger. Analyst Gary Brecher notes ISIS has a relatively small fighting force with little ability to defeat a conventional army, which is how nearly all wars are won, or govern a population, which is how the peace is secured.

Dissecting the propaganda shows why ISIS is not an existential threat, and how the West uses it to perpetuate a global war that shows little sign of ending after more than a decade.

ISIS understands how for-profit media works. What was extreme yesterday is routine tomorrow, lessening the political impact, so ISIS keeps upping the ante with ever-more horrifying videos. It produces videos for different audiences such as English-language ones mocking the United States and showing the beheadings of twenty-one Egyptian Copts captured in Libya, and Arabic-language clips of Syrian soldiers being beheaded.

Apart from the language, the same video is seen differently in the Middle East than in the West. The one of Jordanian fighter jet pilot Mu‘ath al-Kassasbeh being burned alive initially showed him “walking through bombed-out structures, interspersed with scenes of rescuers pulling burned bodies from under rubble.” Kassasbeh’s plane was downed on a bombing run on December 24, and in the video he named eight other Arab nations that participated in the mission, along with France and the United States.

Four days after his capture, “A U.S.-led coalition airstrike killed at least 50 Syrian civilians” in the town of al Bab. Dozens of townspeople claim the toll was “several times higher,” meaning well over a hundred civilians may have died in one U.S.-led airstrike. The Pentagon, however, dismissed claims of civilian casualties as “not credible.” It’s a replay of the Iraq War in which more than 500,000 Iraqis have been killed since 2003, but virtually no civilians were killed by U.S. forces, according to the Pentagon.

By immolating Kassabeh, ISIS was giving its enemies a taste of their own medicine. Syria is one of at least seven nations bombed by the United States since 9/11. Prior to that, during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the United States gave the world some of the most iconic images ever of people being burned to death. At the end of the war U.S. warplanes killed thousands of soldiers and possibly civilians on the “highway of death” in what was likely a war crime. Earlier in the war, the United States bombed an air raid shelter in Baghdad, incinerating at least 408 civilians, but few if any pictures of that charnel house were seen in the West. The 2003 Iraq War began with “Shock and Awe” bombing of targets inside major cities—an act of strategic terrorism designed to destroy “the will to resist.” While occupying Iraq, the Pentagon deployed the devastating AC-130 gunships in dense urban areas like Sadr City. In Fallujah, U.S. forces employed “shake and bake” tactics with white phosphorous bombs, which are generally seen as an illicit chemical weapon as they cause hideous burns. It bombed Iraqi cities so regularly it was rarely news. By June 2006, an estimated 78,000 Iraqis had been blown up or burned to death by U.S.-led airstrikes.

The same comparison can be applied to other ISIS tactics. The group displays abused prisoners in cages and has beheaded more than 100 people since last year, according to a Wikipedia tally. The U.S. occupation, meanwhile, imprisoned more than 100,000 Iraqis, the vast majority believed to be innocent, and held thousands in torture mills like Abu Ghraib. Thousands—probably tens of thousands—were massacred by U.S.-organized death squads and in secret prisons established under the U.S. occupation. Pentagon logs reveal nearly 3,000 Iraqis were killed and wounded at U.S. checkpoints. Thousands of mercenaries running amok in Iraq killed many more civilians, but no one knows how many.

In this context, ISIS propaganda has a distinct logic. It is a graphic reminder of the atrocities committed by U.S. forces that have been hidden from the public eye. Other than the pictures of torture at Abu Ghraib, the Iraq War was sanitized by the U.S. media. It wasn’t until 2009 that the Pentagon lifted an 18-year-old ban on allowing photographs of flag-draped coffins of dead U.S. soldiers—but only if the families allow the photographs to be taken. Going back to the Gulf War, which was packaged as a sterile video-game war, the corporate media have edited out images of the wholesale slaughter caused by the Pentagon supposedly because the death and destruction might upset readers and advertisers.

By not drawing the link between staged atrocities by ISIS and atrocities as inherent to Western military conquest, the corporate media act as propagandists. Erasing U.S. atrocities allows the Pentagon to shape a global battlefield by launching one war after another with minimal public dissent. ISIS propaganda is likewise aimed at shaping the battlefield. By taking Kassasbeh hostage, ISIS weakened Jordanian support for its participation in the U.S. war. It highlighted Jordan’s internal divisions over the conflict. At least 2,000 Jordanians are fighting with ISIS in Syria and Iraq today. One poll from September 2014 found only 62 percent of Jordanians viewed ISIS as a terrorist organization, and only 31 percent said the same about Jabhat al-Nusra—“the official al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria.” Kassasbeh’s capture also led the United Arab Emirates to suspend its participation in the air war, a serious blow as the New York Times called the UAE “the United States’ most stalwart Arab ally in the fight against the Islamic State.”

Similarly, killing the Copts enabled ISIS to trumpet its outpost in Libya, another Arab country pushed into chaos by the West. ISIS also stoked sectarianism in Egypt where Copts were leery of discrimination by the Muslim Brotherhood government. Many supported the Egyptian military coup in 2013 that ousted President Mohammad Morsi. After that, Brotherhood activists vented their frustration on Copts, attacking or burning 37 churches in one incident alone. ISIS’s attack on Copts inflamed communalism and provoked Egypt into bombing Libya, which had been an open secret since last August. It is now harassing the Egyptian military on two fronts as the main armed Islamist outfit in the Sinai Peninsula declared allegiance to ISIS last November.

Now, much has been made of what motivates ISIS. The Atlantic breathlessly claims ISIS is trying to hasten the apocalypse and as such is faithful to the doctrines of Islam. Even granting the proposition that ISIS is in the mainstream of Islam, despite the flimsy evidence, does not explain its success in gaining followers, creating a strong organization, or triumphing in battle. Ideology shapes our understanding of and relation to the world, but you can’t eat ideology or live in it. The Islamic State’s success and failure in Iraq last decade hinged on the economy, jobs, living conditions, personal and community safety, political representation—the same conditions that matter the world over.

ISIS was birthed are in Jordan with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s ill-fated plotting against the monarchy in the 1990s. After a stint in jail, Zarqawi found fertile ground for his brand of warfare first in Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks and then in Iraq. The conditions in Iraq more than ideology gave Zarqawi a new opportunity. The United States made resistance inevitable by trashing the economy, punishing Sunni Arabs for the crimes of Saddam Hussein, and employing sectarian parties and politics to rule the country. Zarqawi’s high-profile attacks and beheadings enabled him to snag the al-Qaeda franchise in Iraq (AQI), despite the group’s misgivings that he was too extreme. The franchise bolstered the flow of foreign recruits and money. AQI is held responsible for many atrocities against Shi’ites, but it was only one of hundreds of armed militant groups Sunni and Shi’ite, nationalist and religious, battling the occupation. What made AQI a top player was support from Sunni Arabs being hunted down by the United States and its Kurdish and Shi’ite partners. Before Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike in 2006, AQI was rebranded as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) and was alienating supporters with its medievalism that was ill-suited to governance. Shortly afterward ISI was sidelined after Sunni tribes turned against it and the Pentagon put tens of thousands of armed tribesmen on the U.S. payroll.

That changed by 2011 as a general revolt against the vicious Syrian state provided ISI with a new base of operations, and it rebranded itself as ISIS under its new leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. In 2013 the Iraqi government cracked down on Sunni protesters killing dozens, occupied Sunni-majority cities with sectarian military forces, and reportedly resorted to death squads and torture once more.

So when ISIS captured cities like Mosul, Ramadi, and Fallujah in 2014 it was not a military conquest. It was an uprising of Sunnis desperate for an ally against a brutal government. Even after a decade of training and tutelage and more than $26 billion in military aid, the Iraqi Army is so poorly equipped, trained and corrupt it collapsed despite its numerical and technological advantage over ISIS. In this regard, it’s part of a pattern of U.S.-backed forces that disintegrate when facing a determined and popular resistance, as in South Vietnam, Nicaragua, and South Korea.

The hysterical media reports that ISIS was encircling Baghdad and the city could fall were ludicrous. It’s one thing for frightened Iraqi soldiers to sacrifice their lives for a venal government in regions where they are hated; it’s another for Shiite and Kurdish militias to protect their homes and families. ISIS is so weak that less than a year after capturing Mosul, its stronghold there is now encircled by Shi’ite and Kurdish forces as the White House decides whether to deploy U.S. forces in invading it.

Establishing a caliphate in Iraq and Syria was a propaganda coup for the United States as well. The Obama administration blamed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for the mess and engineered his removal. It showed the United States still calls the shots in Iraq while escaping culpability as the prime instigator of the sectarianism and extremism tearing the country apart.

It also reveals Washington’s preference for weak states. Strongmen are easier to manipulate than a state with some semblance of a division of powers, citizen input and a functioning bureaucracy and services. If the Iraqi government had used the hundreds of billions of dollars in oil revenue it’s earned over the last decade to develop the economy, infrastructure, and to meet social needs, Iraq would be far more stable. But the United States would find it less reliant and malleable.

To project power from Africa to Asia, Washington needs cartoonish enemies to animate its narrative that the war on terror is about incomprehensible evil, defense of freedom, and just vengeance. The propaganda worked after al-Qaeda killed 3,000 people on U.S. soil because the ideology matched a mood raw and revenge-minded. That support drained away during the Iraq War as more than 4,600 Americans were killed.

Nonetheless, Washington has become embroiled in many more conflicts since the invasion of Iraq. On one level these wars have little in common. Yemen’s conflict is driven by poverty, food insecurity, environmental degradation, ethnic divisions, and the legacy of the Cold War. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is classic settler colonialism. Bahrain’s conflict is an inter-Arab struggle involving autocratic, oil-rich Sunni-led Gulf States that deny resources to poor Shi’ite communities. The U.S. and NATO-led intervention in Libya was a cynical attempt to hijack the Arab Spring, while Syria has become a proxy war between the West, Israel and its Arab allies against Iran, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and Russia. A number of seemingly national conflicts are really an agglomeration of regional and ethnic disputes, such as in Pakistan. There’s conflict between the state and autonomy-seeking groups in Baluchistan, the rivalry with India over control of Jammu and Kashmir, and warfare with Pashtun groups that straddle the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

The common denominator is U.S. involvement, which is both a cause of effect of these conflicts. Many political leaders in these countries are happy to enlist in the war on terror as they and the state apparatus benefit immensely. Pakistan strongman Pervez Musharaff was rewarded with wealth and power. The Egyptian military secured billions of dollars in military aid and a free hand to repress popular protests. The Iraqi Kurds have expanded their territory by 40 percent after ISIS captured Mosul. Forcing everything through the lens of “ISIS is a global threat” warps the root causes of the conflicts, and creates a breeding ground for a new generation of extremists.

Yet, it’s simpler to convince Americans that going to war time and again is necessary by pointing at ISIS rather than confronting the nuanced history and social conditions in each country. It’s also made easier by air power, Special Forces, mercenaries, militias, and proxy forces—all of which minimize official casualties. The Pentagon is currently a combatant in or plays a covert or supporting role in about a dozen conflicts across the Muslim world. Without an archenemy, the ideological basis for the global war would dissipate. ISIS is only the latest character in this role. Since the 1950s the West has labelled one Arab or Muslim leader after another as a new Hitler: Gamal Abdel Nassar, Yasser Arafat, Muammar Gaddafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Hassan Nasrallah, Osama bin Laden, Bashar al-Assad. Americans are so comfortable with Islamophobia that it matters little who the actual enemy is or what the conflict is about. When ISIS is eventually defeated and scattered, the United States and its allies will just pick a new bogeyman as the face of evil.

Arun Gupta contributes to outlets including Al Jazeera America, Vice, The Progressive, The Guardian, and In These Times.

A version of this article was originally published by Telesur.

 

ISIS in the Court of Miracles

By Gordon Duff
March 8, 2015
New Eastern Outlook

 

3342The nature of the Islamic State and its operations presents an enigma. They simply can’t exist. Can we prove the whole thing is a “con?” Oh, we can do that easily, that and so much more, even without descending to questions of mock executions.

The myth of ISIS falls apart without getting close to any conspiracy theories, wild or otherwise.

Today, the Fars News Network reported from Iraqi sources that an American Apache helicopter was shot down dropping supplies to ISIS forces near the western regions of Anbar Province.  The photo below depicts the event:

What’s wrong with this picture?

There are a few things wrong with this picture.  The helicopter shown is a UH10 from as early as 1957.  Thousands are flown around the world, you can buy one on Ebay.  The photo lacks a date time stamp.  It also lacks things like information that could identify the origin and background of who flew it, where it came from, even the most basic forensic common sense.

Where is the pilot?  What was the cargo?  Let’s see the whole photo, where this was actually taken as the portion shown is obviously a crop of a much larger photo.  Is this New York City?  It could be. What we have is an amazing lack of curiosity here.

Last week Fars reported two British transport planes being shot down during supply operations for ISIS.  No pilots or wreckage, no tail numbers, no evidence whatsoever exists of this other than the claim. Are we being told that a two transport aircraft can crash and everyone within 500 miles won’t drive there looking for bags of cash, Rolex watches or other goodies?

Then again, supposedly hundreds of ISIS vehicles have been destroyed by the US bombing campaign, each with VIN numbers on hundreds of parts.  The FBI and Interpol can easily track each vehicle, not only with nearly any part but there are other ways as well.

There are international conventions that govern the sale of black market or stolen vehicles and parts. Every vehicle manufactured enters a database and most major parts are serial numbered and registered as well with all sales and transfers recorded and entered for global access.

Even with GPS disabled, all newer vehicles have electronic ignitions which can be tracked.  All put out radio signals unless Faraday shielding is used. A modern vehicle leaks electromagnetic energy like a flashlight in a darkened room.

Perhaps Toyota doesn’t want to explain how a thousand of its trucks shipped to Israel were modified and transported across Jordan.  Israel and Netanyahu are above any law, now Jordan is claiming the same thing.

Is this, perhaps, why Jordan is now the heroic ally of the right wing extremists in America whose heart reached out to ISIS and their friends in Kiev?  Let’s take a quick look at some things nobody thinks of.

I was in Damascus recently, a capitol of a war torn nation.  Though Damascus is an hour from Beirut by highway, many things, like meat for instance, aren’t that available.  I noted the same thing in Iraq at the height of the war.  Life was rice, beans and occasional frozen chicken unless you were US military, drinking polluted river water sold to the troops by Halliburton and $30 per gallon.

What we are saying is simple; getting supplies in and out of a warzone is nearly impossible, in the real world anyway, but are we in a “real world?”

Let’s go back to the bombing campaign. There are hundreds of trucks blown apart all over Iraq and Syria.  The US has access to most of them as does Iraq and Iran.  Does anyone look at who put on the bumper guards, who welded the plates to support the weapons in the beds?  Does anyone test the gasoline to see where it was refined?

If we can track vehicles, even though we don’t, we can also fingerprint each vehicle, finding who built it, who modified it, what tools were used, what welding materials, what parts. Everything can be tracked down to a source.

Nobody wants to do this. Why? Are they afraid of what they will find? Let’s talk fuel.

Oh, you didn’t know there were no gasoline refineries anywhere around?  You see, in the most regions of the world, gasoline is sold in plastic milk containers and hauled around in pickup trucks. For years, all gasoline used in Kurdistan and Northern Iraq was smuggled in from Turkey?

In the south, it call came by tanker truck from Jordan. There is reason to believe that is still going on, right here in the open for everyone to see, on roads with dozens of government checkpoints.

US forces in Jordan help monitor these roads, these checkpoints, and are somehow distracted whenever shipments to ISIS cross the border. We wonder why hundreds of American military commanders have been fired recently? Is this starting to come into focus?

The US destroyed all refineries within the ISIS region on the first two days of the bombing campaign.

Here is what we do know:

Across Syria and Iraq many are profiting supplying the Islamic State.  More in Jordan and Israel and doing the same.  In Turkey, doing business with ISIS is now a major economic sector.

Treason and collusion with the enemy on behalf not only of Syrians, Iraqis, etc. is widespread.  Moreover, Americans, Brits and others are also involved.  Yes, there really are supply flights but it is time we “got real.”  America has full air supremacy over the entire Middle East.  Yesterday, the Israeli’s reported that the US had threatened to destroy their air force if they tried to attack Iran while the US was negotiating.  If the US could shoot down the Israeli Air Force, downing a helicopter or transport plane would be nothing.

Let’s take a look at other options as well, particularly intelligence.  In 2014 I met with Iraqi officials about available intelligence against ISIS in particular the regions of Mosul and south into Anbar Province.  We offered OCULUS systems, these are “roll on” platforms for C130 aircraft that are capable of things we can’t even begin to discuss, including finding IED’s but also certainly tracking all operational movements of ISIS.

Israeli companies offered advanced communications interception equipment, some with capabilities we can’t even begin to discuss.  Stating that these would totally blind ISIS operations is an understatement.

We also offered to demonstrate advance EMP weapons that would halt any electronics, vehicles, generators, phones, anything over an area we are also not able to discuss but saying “very large” is an understatement.

The US is supposed to have even more advanced equipment.  What we aren’t seeing is the simple things like people asking questions about where gasoline comes from or how ISIS can drive a hundred miles down a two lane road and never be seen by satellites, drones or surveillance aircraft.  Doesn’t the NSA listen to everything?  Maybe ISIS is speaking “pig Latin,” something the NSA can’t decipher.

Has anyone thought of where Toyota trucks come from or how mounting a quad 25mm anti-aircraft gun in the back of a truck isn’t something you can do without advanced capabilities.  Has anyone mentioned that one of these guns fills a 20 foot container?  Then again, how did someone sneak an entire containers ship filled with vehicles into Jordan or Turkey and then transport thousands of armored “technicals” hundreds of miles?

Then again, where does the gasoline come from?  Why do the trucks have no serial numbers, no VIN numbers, no numbers on anything?  Why is it no one asks anything?

How do thousands of Jihadists fly around the world, how do they get into Turkey when a tourist is questioned for 20 minutes at the Istanbul airport.  Turkey has a massive bureaucracy, a huge army, vast intelligence services and nobody goes in or out of Turkey, nothing crosses Turkey.  Turkey isn’t a joke, if Erdogan didn’t want Jihadists going through, they would easily be stopped.

Has anyone looked at a map? Doesn’t anyone notice that you can’t get from North Africa, where many Jihadists originate, to Jordan, Syria or Iraq without transiting through Israel?

Then again, we come back to Jordan.  We know Jordan allowed the CIA to train ISIS fighters though the CIA claims, according to the Wall Street Journal, that they didn’t know they were training the wrong people.

There is a reason questions aren’t asked, not by the press, not by the US and certainly not by any of the nations in the region.  Nobody wants the answers. ISIS is big business and keeping this war going is making endless millions for some very powerful people.

We could have the same discussion about Boko Harum as well, how people who wish to return to the Middle Ages use satellite telephones.  Who pays the bills?  I don’t have a sat phone.  The answer is simple, don’t believe any of it.

Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

US Considering Openly Arming Syrian al-Qaeda Faction, al-Nusra

By Robert Barsocchini
March 5, 2015
Washington’s Blog

 

obama-finances-terrorists-610x400As reported at Antiwar.com, the US and some of its regional client dictatorships are prodding the major al-Qaeda faction operating in Syria, a brutal terrorist group called al-Nusra, to “re-brand” so the US can openly arm it.

Wikipedia notes that al-Nusra:

…is a branch of al-Qaeda operating in Syria…

…has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the United Nations, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Turkey.

…is generally made up of native Syrian mujahideen who adhere to Sunni Islam. Its goal is to overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria and create an Islamic Emirate under Sharia law.

Members of the group have referred to the United States and Israel as enemies of Islam, and warned against Western intervention in Syria.

al-Nusra is also, according to both the United States government and ISIS itself, affiliated with ISIS, formerly known as AQI – al Qaeda in Iraq.

The Council on Foreign Relations notes:

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a predominantly Sunni jihadist group, seeks to sow civil unrest in Iraq and the Levant with the aim of establishing a caliphate—a single, transnational Islamic state based on sharia. The group emerged in the ashes of the U.S.-led invasion to oust Saddam Hussein as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

And Wiki continues:

The United States accused it [al-Nusra] of being affiliated with al-Qaeda in Iraq; in April 2013, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq [later known as ISIS, as noted by CFR above], released an audio statement affirming this connection.

But it still gets better:

al-Nusra may have been the very group that carried out the sarin gas attack in Ghoutta, Syria, which Obama then dishonestly tried to use as a pretext to wage a full on US war of aggression against UN member state Syria.

Pulitzer winning journalist Seymour Hersh:

For months there had been acute concern among senior military leaders and the intelligence community about the role in the war of Syria’s neighbours, especially Turkey. Prime Minister Recep Erdoğan was known to be supporting the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist faction among the rebel opposition, as well as other Islamist rebel groups. ‘We knew there were some in the Turkish government,’ a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, ‘who believed they could get Assad’s nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.’

On 20 June analysts for the US Defense Intelligence Agency issued a highly classified five-page ‘talking points’ briefing for the DIA’s deputy director, David Shedd, which stated that al-Nusra maintained a sarin production cell: its programme, the paper said, was ‘the most advanced sarin plot since al-Qaida’s pre-9/11 effort’. (According to a Defense Department consultant, US intelligence has long known that al-Qaida experimented with chemical weapons, and has a video of one of its gas experiments with dogs.)

Last May, more than ten members of the al-Nusra Front were arrested in southern Turkey with what local police told the press were two kilograms of sarin. In a 130-page indictment the group was accused of attempting to purchase fuses, piping for the construction of mortars, and chemical precursors for sarin.

The DIA paper took the arrests as evidence that al-Nusra was expanding its access to chemical weapons.

In spring 2013 US intelligence learned that the Turkish government – through elements of the MIT, its national intelligence agency, and the Gendarmerie, a militarised law-enforcement organisation – was working directly with al-Nusra and its allies to develop a chemical warfare capability. ‘The MIT was running the political liaison with the rebels, and the Gendarmerie handled military logistics, on-the-scene advice and training – including training in chemical warfare,’ the former intelligence official said. ‘Stepping up Turkey’s role in spring 2013 was seen as the key to its problems there. Erdoğan knew that if he stopped his support of the jihadists it would be all over. The Saudis could not support the war because of logistics – the distances involved and the difficulty of moving weapons and supplies. Erdoğan’s hope was to instigate an event that would force the US to cross the red line.

This means the US, after having worked out a deal with Russia to get Assad to dismantle his chemical arsenal (because of massive US public opposition to aggression against Syria), would now be openly aiding (having long been knowingly “indirectly” aiding) the terrorist group that killed 3,000 US citizens (hence the need to “re-brand”), likely carried out the Ghoutta sarin attack that killed hundreds of civilians, and is working on expanding its chemical weapons capabilities in Syria and the wider area.

It was after Muammar Gaddafi naively partially disarmed himself that the US struck, planting and detonating high explosives in support of al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist groups, and got Gaddafi lynched, turning Libya into a failed state.

It appears the strategy is being re-applied to Syria, with the US again showing its eagerness to act as a dishonest broker.

The US has recently been working closely with “re-branded” neo-Nazi party Svoboda, which was originally called the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine, named in honor of Hitler’s National Socialist party.  In 2012, the EU officially designated Svoboda an anti-democratic, “racist”, “anti-Semitic” group, and the World Jewish Congress then designated it a “neo-Nazi” group.

Aiding these kinds of groups is standard operating procedure for the United States and its original home-country, imperial Britain.  The US has been working closely with non-state jihadist groups on a regular basis since the mid to late 1970s, with Britain having backed them through the 1940s and 50s (here discussed by British historian Mark Curtis).  Prof. Noam Chomsky noted in 1992 that the “US has always been involved in international terrorism, massively”.

US international terror has included, for example, huge aid to Saddam Hussein through the 1980s (through his internationally condemned gassing of the Kurds and Iranians) and into 1990.  Aid included conventional weapons (ie attack helicopters), a “witch’s brew” of chemicals for manufacturing chemical weapons, and blueprints for building chemical weapons manufacturing facilities.

Robert Barsocchini is an internationally published researcher and writer who focuses on global force dynamics and also writes professionally for the film industry.  He is a regular contributor to  Washington’s Blog.  Follow the author and his UK-based colleague, Dean Robinson, on Twitter.