The West Supported the Creation of ISIS

pueblo

Back in May of this year US documents which were released under a freedom of information suit show that the U.S. and the West supported ISIS at its inception … as a way to isolate the Syrian government.

The US and the West are guilty of double-speak and misleading people about their true intentions regarding the Middle East.

The released documents clearly show that there are no moderate rebels in Syria and that extremist Muslim terrorists have always been the driving force behind the insurgency in Syria.

The documents can be viewed here http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified-u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis.html

pueblo

For those who like their sources to be mainstream here is a Guardian article from June this year referring to the documents mentioned in the OP.

Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq

The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions. On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.

The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

pueblo

There seems to be little doubt about who created ISIS, even from ex top brass....

General Wesley Kanne Clark, Sr., former Supreme Allied commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) during the war against Yugoslavia and presidential candidate, revealed recently on CNN that the Islamic State (ISIS) was “funded by our friends and allies in order to fight Hezbollah.”

Clark stated in a recent CNN interview: “ISIS got started through funding from our friends and allies. Because as people will tell you in the region that if you want somebody who will fight to the death against Hezbollah, you don’t put out a recruiting poster saying, ‘sign up for us. We’re gonna make a better world.’ You go after zealots and you go after these religious fundamentalists. That’s who fights Hezbollah. It’s like a Frankenstein.”

http://americanfreepress.net/general-blows-whistle-on-islamic-state/

Dohnjoe

pueblo wrote: »

For those who like their sources to be mainstream here is a Guardian article from June this year referring to the documents mentioned in the OP.

From your article

"That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it"

pueblo

Dohnjoe wrote: »

From your article

"That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it"

From the same article..

The report isn’t a policy document. It’s heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria.

Dohnjoe

"That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it""

"A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups"

Glad he cleared that up

Here is more on the "arming" of the rebels

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33997408

"After the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad in 2011, rooting for the rebels was, for many in the West, synonymous with rooting for democracy and freedom.
In the US, White House officials offered the rebels humanitarian aid and some military gear. But they argued over whether they should provide heavy weapons and help in a more serious way"

"Four years later, the result is a splintered Syrian opposition, the growth of the Islamic State group and a humanitarian disaster stretching across Europe.
Last year, in a move that was more symbolic than serious, Obama asked Congress for money to fund a programme allowing US personnel to teach rebels marksmanship, navigation and other skills.
The goal was to train about 15,000 rebels in Jordan and other countries so they could return to Syria and fight. However, US defence officials admitted last month that only four or five of the recruits in the programme had actually returned to the battle."

The whole article is a good insight into the situation and lack of action. If anything the US had very little to directly do with ISIS - that was funding and support from thousands of Gulf and Arab financiers - did the Gulf allies do enough to stem this flow? likewise can be also be asked if Europe did enough to stem the flow of thousands of Europeans down to Syria to flood the ranks of ISIS

The group itself has become almost fully autonomous since and requires little or no outside support

Overheal

Arguably though western intervention could have easily prevented a paramilitary group from forming. Instead, it seems that nobody learned their lesson from Al Qaeda, so this doesn't even surprise me. Not sure if its a CT more than it is an 'open secret' that is underreported. For one, I don't think the United States willfully thought to themselves 'yeah, we'll build the caliphate that will attack western civilization.' This was more kneejerk misguided 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' bs.

ScumLord

The problem for the Americans is they came to the whole war game kind of late. Britain could go to war with other countries and find a resolution because if the other side didn't come to a resolution the Brits could and would wipe them out of existence. Can't do that anymore though. Now the Americans go in start a fight, get everyone pissed off, **** the local economy up, then decide they don't want to fight anymore and go home.

Overheal

Its that whole wiping things out of existing thing that has become universally unpalatable. Hitler sort of sapped all the fun out of it, y'know? The UN wouldn't stomach one country wiping out another like it was done in centuries long past.

pueblo

Overheal wrote: »

Its that whole wiping things out of existing thing that has become universally unpalatable. Hitler sort of sapped all the fun out of it, y'know? The UN wouldn't stomach one country wiping out another like it was done in centuries long past.

The UN has no qualms about supporting the illegal push for regime change in Syria. If this isn't allowing one country to wipe out another then I don't know what is. Syria is being destroyed and it's people scattered to the wind.

UN Security Council approves 'all necessary measures' to fight the 'global and unprecedented threat' of ISIS in wake of Paris attacks

The UN's text does not provide any legal basis for military action, although a coalition of nations - and Russia - are already bombing ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
The resolution states that the UN is determined 'to combat by all means this unprecedented threat', citing ISIS' 'systematic and widespread attacks' on civilians as reasons for action.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3327833/UN-Security-Council-approves-necessary-measures-fight-ISIS-wake-Paris-attacks.html#ixzz3trtzOSSz

ScumLord

pueblo wrote: »

The UN has no qualms about supporting the illegal push for regime change in Syria. If this isn't allowing one country to wipe out another then I don't know what is. Syria is being destroyed and it's people scattered to the wind.

The UN is targeting ISIS there, it doesn't give anyone the right to attack Syria, ISIS are restricted to an area which includes part of Syria and all foreign allied forces are there with the permission of Syria.

It's still not the same as the good old days, it's not like Syria is going to be the next Carthage.

Dohnjoe

pueblo wrote: »

The UN has no qualms about supporting the illegal push for regime change in Syria. If this isn't allowing one country to wipe out another then I don't know what is. Syria is being destroyed and it's people scattered to the wind.

The UN was one of the main reasons there was no international consensus on Syria. Russia, who is a permanent member, vetoed any (non-interventional) UN resolutions to protect their last foothold in the Middle East

Overheal

pueblo wrote: »

The UN has no qualms about supporting the illegal push for regime change in Syria. If this isn't allowing one country to wipe out another then I don't know what is.

Well when mesoamerica was wiped out, Germany invaded Poland, the war in the pacific, Tibet, Palestine, etc.

Overheal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The UN was one of the main reasons there was no international consensus on Syria. Russia, who is a permanent member, vetoed any (non-interventional) UN resolutions to protect their last foothold in the Middle East

We (the US I mean) do the same with Israel so unfortunately our ground to talk is somewhat weak

pueblo

Britain is certainly on dodgy ground with MP's openly questioning the reasons given for Britain's participation.

What gets me is the West's arrogance, neither the US or Britain have any legal basis for their involvement. Russia has been given permission by Assad to target ISIS and to be in Syrian airspace, the others have not.

Assad says Britain's Syria strikes 'illegal', will only fuel terror.

http://news.yahoo.com/assad-says-britains-syria-strikes-illegal-encourage-terror-004719173.html

Dohnjoe

pueblo wrote: »

What gets me is the West's arrogance, neither the US or Britain have any legal basis for their involvement. Russia has been given permission by Assad to target ISIS and to be in Syrian airspace, the others have not.

Russia is primarily there to bomb rebels who were previously making big gains and moving in on Assad (who represents Russia's last key ally in the Middle East) "Bombing IS" is a sideshow

Peist2007

If by conspiracy theory you mean that the notion put forward is completely the opposite to how it is reported in the western media, then yes.

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html
https://sites.google.com/site/onedemocraticstatesite/archives/what-wikileaks-showed-us-about-u-s-motivations-in-syria

US Defense Intelligence Agency Report on Syria Summer 2012:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf
See p3 para B & C, P5 para 7B, and 8C.


CIA & MI6 running guns to Syrian 'rebels'
Independent uk article on Turkey and US with Britain smuggling Gaddafi arms to Syrian rebels
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/mi6-the-cia-and-turkeys-rogue-game-in-syria-9256551.html

McCain in 2013 calling for US support to Syrian Rebels and then warning when Congress blocked military action:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/05/mccain-syria-rebels-aid_n_3218839.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/02/john-mccain-obama-syria-strikes-congress
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/16/us-to-send-400-troops-to-train-syrian-rebels?commentpage=1


These guys went on to join ISIS, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/25/us-training-syrian-opposition-forces-in-jordan-for-months-sources-say/

Re Saudis backing and ISIS http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html



All normal non-conspiracy media sources. The info is all out there lads. You just have to stop assuming that western media is not pushing a very distinct agenda.

Dohnjoe

Peist2007 wrote: »

If by conspiracy theory you mean that the notion put forward is completely the opposite to how it is reported in the western media, then yes.

It's well known and very well reported by media all around the world that Western and other countries have provided various levels of support for differing groups of rebels in Syria

Popular conspiracy sites claim that the West directly supports ISIS, created ISIS, is ISIS, fakes the ISIS beheadings, conducts false flags in the name of ISIS, etc

All normal non-conspiracy media sources. The info is all out there lads. You just have to stop assuming that western media is not pushing a very distinct agenda.

Your links are accurate or just pushing an agenda, which is it?

Master of the Omniverse

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's well known and very well reported by media all around the world that Western and other countries have provided various levels of support for differing groups of rebels in Syria

Popular conspiracy sites claim that the West directly supports ISIS, created ISIS, is ISIS, fakes the ISIS beheadings, conducts false flags in the name of ISIS, etc




Your links are accurate or just pushing an agenda, which is it?

Of course its common knowledge that various alphabet agencies have facilities dedicated to the art of regime change and this has been going on for a long time.let's look at the middle east in recent years.Iraq,Libya,Afghanistan,Syria has been a stubborn one,now with Russian involvement complicating their aims.countries in that area have been picked off one by one.the foundations for Isis started during jimmy carters time as president,supplying arms ,money,support to mujahadeen rebels fighting Russia.the west never backed moderates.regime change was and is always the agenda.check out the now infamous Albert Pike letter,this current chapter in history was planned well over 100 years ago.

Dohnjoe

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Of course its common knowledge that various alphabet agencies have facilities dedicated to the art of regime change and this has been going on for a long time.let's look at the middle east in recent years.Iraq,Libya,Afghanistan,Syria has been a stubborn one,now with Russian involvement complicating their aims.countries in that area have been picked off one by one.the foundations for Isis started during jimmy carters time as president,supplying arms ,money,support to mujahadeen rebels fighting Russia.the west never backed moderates.regime change was and is always the agenda.check out the now infamous Albert Pike letter,this current chapter in history was planned well over 100 years ago.

Wouldn't quite label everything black and white and "pre-planned". It's different administrations from differing countries reacting to fluid and ever-changing situations. Some are predictable responses, some aren't

Some individuals handily chose to interpret these events as all part of a neat greater scheme that is all planned to suit from nefarious purpose that extends far beyond a typical politicians 4/8 years in office

The "West" (whatever that is) is a loose definition of a big basket of countries that have backed everything from drug dealers, to insurgents, to terrorists, to genuine freedom fighters, to domestic resistance, to moderates, legitimate democractic institutions and movements.. everything.. for a multitude of reasons ranging from underhand geopolitics to sheer humanitarianism, and everything in between

Sewing it all together into some neat narrative is a classic case of pattern forming, which typically follows a personal or political agenda - elementary error which pains most modern historians

Master of the Omniverse

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Wouldn't quite label everything black and white and "pre-planned". It's different administrations from differing countries reacting to fluid and ever-changing situations. Some are predictable responses, some aren't

Some individuals handily chose to interpret these events as all part of a neat greater scheme that is all planned to suit from nefarious purpose that extends far beyond a typical politicians 4/8 years in office

The "West" (whatever that is) is a loose definition of a big basket of countries that have backed everything from drug dealers, to insurgents, to terrorists, to genuine freedom fighters, to domestic resistance, to moderates, legitimate democractic institutions and movements.. everything.. for a multitude of reasons ranging from underhand geopolitics to sheer humanitarianism, and everything in between

Sewing it all together into some neat narrative is a classic case of pattern forming, which typically follows a personal or political agenda - elementary error which pains most modern historians

Have you had the chance to study the Albert Pike letter?

Dohnjoe

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Have you had the chance to study the Albert Pike letter?

Most likely a hoax

http://wideshut.co.uk/albert-pikes-3-world-wars-letter-hoax-wideshut-webcast/

Master of the Omniverse

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Most likely a hoax

http://wideshut.co.uk/albert-pikes-3-world-wars-letter-hoax-wideshut-webcast/

A hoax,possibly.However two thirds of the letter came to fruition and the other third we see unfold before our very eyes.Pike was no messer,and Mazzini (the recipient of said letter) brought about the creation of the Mafia.