“Going After” the Islamic State. Guess Who is Behind the Caliphate Project?

[Pimander]

Yes and No. The important aspect of this is that the United States could vanish enitirely and forever....and the fight over there would barely pause or slow down.

I disagree.  Without the money and cash to buy them the fighting would slow down.

[Wrabbit2000]

I disagree.  Without the money and cash to buy them the fighting would slow down.

Money and Cash is coming at the rate of over $2 million per calendar day right now from captured oil facilities alone. Extortion and protection or 'rent' schemes pushed by ISIS command onto the residents of their occupied territory further fills their coffers and supports their efforts. Money wouldn't seem to be their major need. Weapons are all courtesy of the United States and Iraq now, thanks to captured basis in well stocked conditions.

People are flocking to ISIS in some areas of Syria because they stand AGAINST The House of Saud for regional influence...while fiercely against the Shia corruption of the Malaki (Iranian backed) puppet. He was followed by one not quite as accomplished with death squads meant to hunt down every last officer of the Saddam era ..and who form the Officer corps of ISIS now.. but same same in the end, and all politics are local in ways these guys take to entirely new levels.

The Taliban was nationalist to a fault in their goals and efforts. Afghanistan free of outsiders, is their Mantra. At least to their followers that need to hear that before going out to die for the cause.

Al Qaeda was and, to some extent, still is a vengeance based cause largely founded by Bin Laden as a means to exact his revenge and eventual removal of the Saudi Royal Family for the crimes of allowing Infidels to sully the sacred soil of the Arabian Peninsula as well as the lands containing Mecca and Medina. That aspect came entirely from Bin Laden being laughed at and told to vacate the Kingdom after offering to be it's "Desert Shield" in 1990. (They should have let him try. He wouldn't have existed to be the problem later)

ISIS has already stated and in no uncertain terms the value (or lack of) they place on Mecca or Medina. It's not about that for them, and the existence of those places is bordering on blasphemy to their very refined and radical belief system. In fact, even Muslims who aren't their brand of Islam are infidels to them and fit for a choice...maybe. Convert to their way or assume the position for execution.

I think the world is grasping for ways to categorize what hasn't been seen in centuries. We're trying to making sense, in modern terms, of people who are doing nothing by modern rules. Old rules and TRUE terrorism of the Viking and German styles to break morale and destroy resistance before a battle begins...is their tactic and in a world unprepared for it? Even the 'vaunted' American and Russian intelligence services seem left with 'what the heck do we do with this?!' as the best response.

Of course..We may never agree with anything related to this subject too. That's fine and we all take different paths of learning to reach our conclusions, eh?

[Ellirium113]

You missed one of the MAIN elements of funding.... The Muslim Brotherhood.

http://www.do-egypt.com/international-news/link-muslim-brotherhood-isis/

There is always more to the story than what your being told.

[spacemaverick]

Follow the money and supplies and you will find out who supports what and where.  Sometimes (more often that not) some nation states play both ends for the middle and make money of the conflicts.

[Pimander]

Money wouldn't seem to be their major need. Weapons are all courtesy of the United States and Iraq now, thanks to captured basis in well stocked conditions.

Yes the weapons and money are there now but when these groups grew they used Saudi and other money to buy arms.  We (USA, Britain, France) supported this and that is the reason the group is now so strong.

We basically encouraged the conditions to allow these groups to flourish in an attempt to force regimen change in Syria and to destabilise the region to have a pretext to intervene to secure the oil if required..  It has been a catastrophe in human terms.  The policy is fundamentally wrong on moral grounds (it is fundamentally wrong to have war period) and politically idiotic.

I have said this many times.  Humanity is still extremely primitive as long as they settle disputes and how to distribute resources by killing each other.  Basically War is the legalised murder or genocide by the poor on behalf of the ruling classes.

Vote Pimander for peace and fairness.

Of course..We may never agree with anything related to this subject too. That's fine and we all take different paths of learning to reach our conclusions, eh?

Indeed.

[Wrabbit2000]

The policy is fundamentally wrong on moral grounds (it is fundamentally wrong to have war period) and politically idiotic.

Unfortunately, war and conflict have been man's preferred method of conflict resolution since the first caveman brained his buddy over a better spot to sleep in the cave.

It's one thing that is almost shocking to have seen through half a dozen history and soft science courses now, but humanity has been at ANY form of "peace" so rarely, and for such short periods over the last few thousand years combined, that it's actually accurate to say peace is the unnatural exception to mans regular state of affairs.

ISIS will be fighting to the death whether the US withdraws 100% and hides behind its borders or is in there fighting with the best of them. It's not a fight the other side cares whether we join or not as to their own plans. A Caliphate supercedes Western considerations. I just hope we realize that sooner than later, before the people we act to make deals with, run us over like a cartoon.

We've gotten ourselves into a fight that started long before our nation existed and won't end until long after you and I are dead and gone....and we think we can somehow solve what the other side has no desire to "solve". Heck... It's not a problem needing a solution to their thinking. It's what they intend to achieve in life....however much damage is required to get there.

[Amaterasu]

Unfortunately, war and conflict have been man's preferred method of conflict resolution since the first caveman brained his buddy over a better spot to sleep in the cave.

Not really so...  For a very long time now the average Human has been manipulated into war to the profit of the war suppliers.  The war suppliers use every dirty trick to incite wars:  false flags, psyops, propaganda, false rumor, lies, and agents provocateurs.  9/11 is a prime example of how We were manipulated.  There are no doubt other examples around the globe, but the useless eliters have most hold here, with the financial strings going everywhere.

If We were not so manipulated for profit (and satanic thrill), We would seldom think war is the best solution.

And yes, darlin', I know the states are not the be-all and end-all.  But We do have a lot of influence on the general planetary thinking.

With ISIS/ISIL having been manufactured as first an ally, but then used as enemy, many are duped, but it is clear that amongst Those who see the truth of the matter, there is pretty much zero support for war.

[Senduko]

With ISIS/ISIL having been manufactured as first an ally, but then used as enemy, many are duped, but it is clear that amongst Those who see the truth of the matter, there is pretty much zero support for war.

I would love to see a source for this claim( not saying I don't believe you )


Man has always had an appetite for destruction, As long as emotions exist WAR/destruction/hate will exist.


When your fellow human is jealous of his neighbor it isn't the government whispering in his ear, its just human flaw. At best you could say tptb are exploiting this flaw in our system.

[Wrabbit2000]

With ISIS/ISIL having been manufactured as first an ally, but then used as enemy, many are duped, but it is clear that amongst Those who see the truth of the matter, there is pretty much zero support for war.

I am more than a bit confused on this point. How far back or more importantly, how recently do you believe ISIS and the foundation it spawned from, were formed? It sounds like you are considering this as recent developments or at least having it's origins within the last 20-25 years?

In my own case and perspective, I don't disagree a bit to the idea that war is often a manufactured thing for how it starts. Either by design or by omission of clear action that would have prevented it. Either way, the end result is the same by war being an expected and desired outcome among those with the power to determine that.

The Middle East is something a bit different though, and it would almost be amusing if the backdrop didn't include the death from brutal violence. The thing is though...If an Asian nation like North Korea gets worked up..no one thinks to suggest Kim is a puppet of Washington. He is assumed (rightly so) to have intelligence, will and desires of his own. The same applies, generally speaking, with Europe and South America as other examples of where outside influence is acknowledged but rarely seen as the "but for" cause that brought on a war.

In the Middle East though, almost invariably, they are seen as somehow incapable of independent thought, will or assertion of their own ambitions to act outside of the dictates of Western powers. I don't sell the Arabs near that short, and especially when one is fighting to regain a true and proper empire (Persians) while the other is trying to recreate one of the closest examples to "Global Rule" under a single man our planet has come to see with the first two transnational Caliphates.

I give them credit for not only being capable but so thoroughly tired of being used from the outside, that they are past time to do exactly what we're now seeing them do. I just wish this had come in different context and where the Islamists seeking to create their Caliphate weren't looking at it as mutually exclusive to exist along side the Western World.

That last distinction makes war almost impossible to avoid, and a question of time or setting more than the inevitability of it. That dictate comes from their actions. Not ours.

[Amaterasu]

I would love to see a source for this claim( not saying I don't believe you )


Man has always had an appetite for destruction, As long as emotions exist WAR/destruction/hate will exist.


When your fellow human is jealous of his neighbor it isn't the government whispering in his ear, its just human flaw. At best you could say tptb are exploiting this flaw in our system.

Heh.  Seems the solution is to minimize that which One can be "jealous" of (envious of, mostly).  TPTB have only the tool of money to implement exploitation.

As to US creation of ISIS/ISIL...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-made-in-usa-iraq-geopolitical-arsonists-seek-to-burn-region/5387475

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-funding-us-allies-2014-6

http://guardianlv.com/2014/06/isis-trained-by-us-government/

http://www.vox.com/cards/things-about-isis-you-need-to-know/what-is-isis

http://rt.com/op-edge/181068-isis-iraq-violence-us-intervene/

And on and on...

[Amaterasu]

I am more than a bit confused on this point. How far back or more importantly, how recently do you believe ISIS and the foundation it spawned from, were formed? It sounds like you are considering this as recent developments or at least having it's origins within the last 20-25 years?

Isis was Al Qaida which We created initially to fight Russia.  Then We labeled Them "bad" and used Them as the excuse to war.  They have merely been relabeled ISIS then ISIL... 

[burntheships]

Isis was Al Qaida which We created initially to fight Russia. 

This is far to simplified a statement to be considered accurate.

In reality, The beginnings of Jihad can be traced back to the words of the
Prophet Muhammad and the writings of the Qur'an.

As to whether the West created al-Qaeda; there is much controversy
surrounding that claim; though there could be some truth in there
somewhere. Though, infiltration can hardly be considered the same
as actual "creation".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1670089.stm

[Wrabbit2000]

Isis was Al Qaida which We created initially to fight Russia.  Then We labeled Them "bad" and used Them as the excuse to war.  They have merely been relabeled ISIS then ISIL...

I believe I would definitely disagree with the concept that Western powers created Al Qaeda. Even during the 1980's and before Al Qaeda existed, Bin Laden's group of Arabs were an awkward fit among the Afghan Mujaheddin we were supporting and giving Stinger missiles to on a 1:1 trade system. (They brought out the empty tube and got another full one.  No empty..no refill. Clever and effective) Bin Laden was public on multiple occasions about how he'd just as soon kill a CIA Officer as a KGB Officer if he could get the shot though. Years later, as we all know, he made a near sport of killing American intelligence officers......or those that some suggest were his friends.

Al Qaeda didn't come to exist until around 1989 though (after the Afghanistan war with Russia was becoming a piece of history), and more properly, 1990'ish when Bin Laden first showed up in Saudi to demand the Infidels be thrown off the sacred soils so Al Qaeda could fight Saddam and protect the Kingdom instead.

No argument from me that the U.S. (and Russia during their Soviet prime) were meddling in every brush fire and back country example of conflict, anywhere in the world. To that end, we certainly did support the Afghans against them. The ones we supported were also there in 2001 when we came back. Al Qaeda murdered the leader of them (General Ahmad Shah Massoud), a couple days before America saw 9/11...and in doing so, likely solidified their position to survive what was about to come from the West. Massoud would have had their lunch and sent them a bill for it...but I digress.

Massoud lead the Northern Alliance though, not Al Qaeda and the 'post-Massoud' Northern Alliance is who assisted us in tracking and chasing the Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters clear up to the Paki border by November of 2001. Of course, the N.A. occupied towns and cities (including Kabul) as they went and that was their side of the benefit. Then of course, Bush told the CIA/Green Beenie teams to stand down and stand aside while he made what could have ended by Christmas into a "good and proper" war by bringing in the Marines. One of whom was my brother in law within the first waves into the Kandahar area. An event that never had to happen and never should have, IMO.

It is amazing though, how many different ways people who (I presume) lived the time period as well, have come to see those things we all watched happen together.

[Amaterasu]

I believe I would definitely disagree with the concept that Western powers created Al Qaeda. Even during the 1980's and before Al Qaeda existed, Bin Laden's group of Arabs were an awkward fit among the Afghan Mujaheddin we were supporting and giving Stinger missiles to on a 1:1 trade system. (They brought out the empty tube and got another full one.  No empty..no refill. Clever and effective) Bin Laden was public on multiple occasions about how he'd just as soon kill a CIA Officer as a KGB Officer if he could get the shot though. Years later, as we all know, he made a near sport of killing American intelligence officers......or those that some suggest were his friends.

Hmmmm.  Play posturing?  Tim Osman (aka Osama BL) was a CIA asset.  Part of the script?

Al Qaeda didn't come to exist until around 1989 though (after the Afghanistan war with Russia was becoming a piece of history), and more properly, 1990'ish when Bin Laden first showed up in Saudi to demand the Infidels be thrown off the sacred soils so Al Qaeda could fight Saddam and protect the Kingdom instead.

The label didn't appear til about then, I agree.  But the core group of agents provocateurs are the same.  They will fight as "allies" or as "enemy," as TPTB choose, as is most likely to spawn war.

[Wrabbit2000]

The label didn't appear til about then, I agree.  But the core group of agents provocateurs are the same.  They will fight as "allies" or as "enemy," as TPTB choose, as is most likely to spawn war.

I agree with that, although we see different groups, I believe. I'm looking at the Sunni/Shia war, which dates back a good way and runs parallel in the last couple hundred years with the Wahhabi sect of Sunni vs. the rest of Sunni and Islam as a whole, unto itself. Prior to the West even finding they had oil in 'dem dar dunes' and it might be useful for something, these folks were having the fight we may just live to see the end of, as things are happening now.

I don't mean anything so dramatic as religious end times, but the end of one side or the other (and math doesn't look good for Shia in this one) in that fight across the region there.

Western minds think in simple and linear terms. Its why we couldn't 'run' these guys if we actually wanted to or tried. They live in a world of a virtual onion of everyone hating everyone for strategic and religious issues else unless 'the enemy of my enemy' can put it aside to hate on another party together, but then get back to hating everyone equally again when that passes. Layer upon layer of reasons to fight and blood debts our Government chooses to avoid even taking into consideration as a real factor. Our land fights for a few years and calls it a World War. Those guys fight the same battles for a century and call it business still left to finish.