I had another post almost ready to go, but I cannot think about anything else right now.
Never forget: ISIS was created by neoconservatives in the United States and Israel. ISIS is the demon child of the same people who whipped up the Iraq war.
After the disaster of the Iraq war made direct American intervention in the region unpopular, the neocons decided that they had to create a proxy army to fulfill their dream of overturning Bashar Assad. Since Assad was a secular leader, the opposing army was -- naturally -- filled with religious maniacs.
In many previous posts, we have seen incontrovertible evidence that the money for ISIS came from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey -- all American allies. These countries could never have created this massive proxy army without our consent.
Israel has been quietly aiding ISIS. Why? Because ISIS is fighting Iran and Assad's Syria, two states which Israel wants to see overturned. See here, here, here and here.
Think on this, as well: Many of the young religious maniacs who joined ISIS came from Europe and the United States. A lot of guys who should have been on the "no fly" list suddenly were allowed to jet into the war zone. How did that happen?
Allow me to make another point. The key point.
Not long ago, Presidential candidate Lindsey Graham said these words: "With Assad being propped up by Russia and Iran, it means the war [in Syria] never ends." That sentiment is echoed by all Republicans and most Democrats. And yet...
If Assad falls, ISIS will control all of Syria.
That's a simple fact. There is no third option. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.
In that light, we should join Putin and Assad and the leaders of Iran in their heroic efforts against ISIS. But are we helping them? No, we are not. We are doing everything we can to impede their efforts.
It's a zero-sum game: You cannot hurt Assad without helping ISIS. I wish the situation were otherwise, but reality is reality. Reality is made of a stuff far more obdurate than the stones of Palmyra.
Given this reality, anyone who seeks the overthrow of Bashar Assad is -- objectively speaking -- pro-ISIS.
In other words, our entire political establishment is pro-ISIS, because our entire political establishment has been committed to overthrowing Assad.
Even the Islamophobic right is pro-ISIS. They will never admit this truth, yet it is the truth.
Consider these things are you view those infuriating photographs of the latest ISIS outrage.
7 comments:
Maybe you've already covered this, Joseph, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the reason for trying to overthrow Assad is the hopes that the new regime will force the Russians to give up their naval base in Tartus. This is their only base on the Mediterranean, and one of only two military bases they have outside of their satellite zone (the other one is in Viet Nam).
It used to be that we valued a balance of power. It seems that now we're insisting on a complete shift of the balance to the USA (with its 700 military bases around the world) and trying to paint Putin's defensive measures in Crimea and Syria as imperialism.
Destabilizing he conventional balance of power will inevitably lead to an escalated arms race in nuclear and high-tech weaponry--one which will of course be very profitable for the Masters of War. Obama's actions in service to PNAC's agenda of global domination are transparent.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2015/1004/Is-Syria-s-long-war-wearing-down-key-Assad-backer-Hezbollah
Well into the piece an Israeli military man depicts Hezbollah as still the worst enemy of Israel, more powerful than in 2006.
Moscow-Damascushezb-Tehran, the axis of liberation.
Should explain a little about Amer-israeli policy.
What percentage of the total anti-Assad forces does ISIS actually constitute? All reports seem to be "through a glass, darkly". We're told of Al-Nursa as opposed to ISIS, and lately of "the Army of Conquest" as a supposed umbrella group of non-ISIS rebel groups but are they a significant factor on the ground or jusr a fig leaf for ISIS? Conflicting reports...conflict.
@1:38:
It's obvious to me this plan to topple the ME powers and reduce them to internally warring mini-states unable to project military power is approaching 40 years old. It was the Yinon Plan of the '80s, the Clean Break plan of the '90s, and when the writers of the Clean Break made it into the W administration in the '00s, it was the plan of W's Pentagon as early as December 2001. Seven ME countries to be taken down this way in five years, according to what Gen. Wesley Clark says he was informed at the Pentagon in late 2001.
The harm to Russia's base is secondary to one of the end goals of this plan, taking out Iran. (After Iraq has been taken out as a unified country, Iran remains as the next sizable regional power, and Syria is their only nearby ally.) And Iran was explicitly named as one of the seven countries to be attacked to Clark.
XI
right again joe. damn shame, that millions of media viewing idiots here, will never hear a word of these obvious truths. our 4th estate is dead.
Read Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked the World: An Insider's View by J. Michael Springman
The power paradigm. The nastier the leader, the nastier the warring factions within the country the nasty leader has managed to control. Get rid of the nasty leader and Al Queda type groups step in and the U.S. is happily supplying weapons of destruction to all who have money as the warring factions fight their never ending civil wars.
Post a Comment