Aslan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 4,551
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
OI welcome back, and this time try to find a way to send me ur email some how so I can be in touch with u even outside this forum.
ISIL Discussions
- Thread starter senheiser
- Start date
Syrian Lion
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2012
- Messages
- 7,264
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Nothing new, Saudi "Arabia" has always supported terrorists and have always funded terrorists world wide... they even have events to collect money for terrorists in Syria and they call it "charity"
forcetrip
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2009
- Messages
- 4,316
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
'This is Iraq - if you have guns, bring them'
Iraqis in Baghdad and beyond are reaching for their rifles in a call to arms to stop ISIL.
Iraq's military recruitment drive has intensified over the last few days. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani on Friday announced that all Iraqis should join the national army.
His word counts. He's the highest Shia religious authority in the country and as such is the spiritual guide for millions of Shia in this country, but his statement was meant to include all Iraqis not just Shia.
On state TV, patriotic songs fill the space in between the news and cooking programmes. One song shows Iraqis of all ages join together on the steps of what looks like a mosque. They are each draped in the national flag while an orchestra plays a sweeping score underneath.
With each line they sing louder, lauding Iraq and Iraqis. Another video sees a unit of the Iraqi military stand menacing in the background while a slightly uncomfortable, overweight singer dressed to the nines in battlefield gear sings the praises of Iraq's army.
It all points to the further militarisation of Iraqi society. On Sunday the National Security Council hosted a press conference. One of the messages caught my ear: "If you have weapons at home, please bring them to the recruitment centre, there we will register you."
'Join and fight'
The official line is clear. Iraqis must join up and fight. However, there is concern that the call to arms is being manipulated for political and sectarian purposes.
Speaking to a foreign a diplomat here I got a sense that he was worried.
"Sistani's call to arms was clear, it was non-sectarian and a call for Iraqis to join the national army. But it's been twisted by certain groups as an excuse to join militias and that in the long run will be unhelpful."
Here in Baghdad we are getting credible reports that Shia militias are setting up checkpoints of their own in areas they control. This suggests the city is getting ready for an assault.
The sense of nervousness is palpable. Young men are signing up to fight at recruitment centres across the city and the country. I've heard some say they have moved their guns to easily accessible locations in their houses and cars.
It's no exaggeration to say that people are preparing for an attack on the city. The security services have increased checkpoints and are mounting more mobile patrols.
Iraqi society is not shy of gun culture.
Last year I was chatting with a friend called Ammar. He told me: "You need at least three guns. An AK-47 for the house, a pistol for the car and a hunting rifle."
At the time I put it down to a mentality developed during years of war. I called Ammar on Sunday and asked him how he felt about the current crisis.
After telling me about his fear for his family and friends, and how if it came to it he would fight, he said: "This is Iraq - if you have guns, bring them."
'This is Iraq - if you have guns, bring them' - Al Jazeera Blogs
Iraqis in Baghdad and beyond are reaching for their rifles in a call to arms to stop ISIL.
Iraq's military recruitment drive has intensified over the last few days. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani on Friday announced that all Iraqis should join the national army.
His word counts. He's the highest Shia religious authority in the country and as such is the spiritual guide for millions of Shia in this country, but his statement was meant to include all Iraqis not just Shia.
On state TV, patriotic songs fill the space in between the news and cooking programmes. One song shows Iraqis of all ages join together on the steps of what looks like a mosque. They are each draped in the national flag while an orchestra plays a sweeping score underneath.
With each line they sing louder, lauding Iraq and Iraqis. Another video sees a unit of the Iraqi military stand menacing in the background while a slightly uncomfortable, overweight singer dressed to the nines in battlefield gear sings the praises of Iraq's army.
It all points to the further militarisation of Iraqi society. On Sunday the National Security Council hosted a press conference. One of the messages caught my ear: "If you have weapons at home, please bring them to the recruitment centre, there we will register you."
'Join and fight'
The official line is clear. Iraqis must join up and fight. However, there is concern that the call to arms is being manipulated for political and sectarian purposes.
Speaking to a foreign a diplomat here I got a sense that he was worried.
"Sistani's call to arms was clear, it was non-sectarian and a call for Iraqis to join the national army. But it's been twisted by certain groups as an excuse to join militias and that in the long run will be unhelpful."
Here in Baghdad we are getting credible reports that Shia militias are setting up checkpoints of their own in areas they control. This suggests the city is getting ready for an assault.
The sense of nervousness is palpable. Young men are signing up to fight at recruitment centres across the city and the country. I've heard some say they have moved their guns to easily accessible locations in their houses and cars.
It's no exaggeration to say that people are preparing for an attack on the city. The security services have increased checkpoints and are mounting more mobile patrols.
Iraqi society is not shy of gun culture.
Last year I was chatting with a friend called Ammar. He told me: "You need at least three guns. An AK-47 for the house, a pistol for the car and a hunting rifle."
At the time I put it down to a mentality developed during years of war. I called Ammar on Sunday and asked him how he felt about the current crisis.
After telling me about his fear for his family and friends, and how if it came to it he would fight, he said: "This is Iraq - if you have guns, bring them."
'This is Iraq - if you have guns, bring them' - Al Jazeera Blogs
Hasbara Buster
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2010
- Messages
- 4,612
- Reaction score
- -7
Hezbollah kept ISIL out of Lebanon: Nasrallah
Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah has been able to stop al-Qaeda-linked militancy from spilling over into Lebanon, says Secretary General Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah.
Nasrallah was quoted by Lebanese newspaper al-Safir on Tuesday as saying that the resistance group foiled attempts by militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to enter Lebanon.
“If we had not intervened in Syria at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way... the ISIL would now be in Beirut," said the Hezbollah leader.
Syria has been gripped by deadly violence for more than three years. Over 160,000 people have reportedly been killed and millions of others displaced due to the turmoil fueled by the foreign-backed militants.
On June 10, the ISIL militants took control of Iraq’s Mosul, in a lightning advance, which was followed by the fall of Tikrit, located 140 kilometers (87 miles) northwest of the capital Baghdad.
Nasrallah extolled calls by Iraqi religious leaders for the people to take up arms and defend their countries, saying, "The aim of this (call) was not to protect a specific sect, but to protect all of Iraq."
Hundreds of thousands of people have been forced out of their homes since the ISIL took the Nineveh provincial capital Mosul overnight.
The United Nations has voiced concerns over reports of crimes committed by the ISIL militants.
PressTV - Hezbollah kept ISIL out of Lebanon: Nasrallah
Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah has been able to stop al-Qaeda-linked militancy from spilling over into Lebanon, says Secretary General Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah.
Nasrallah was quoted by Lebanese newspaper al-Safir on Tuesday as saying that the resistance group foiled attempts by militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to enter Lebanon.
“If we had not intervened in Syria at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way... the ISIL would now be in Beirut," said the Hezbollah leader.
Syria has been gripped by deadly violence for more than three years. Over 160,000 people have reportedly been killed and millions of others displaced due to the turmoil fueled by the foreign-backed militants.
On June 10, the ISIL militants took control of Iraq’s Mosul, in a lightning advance, which was followed by the fall of Tikrit, located 140 kilometers (87 miles) northwest of the capital Baghdad.
Nasrallah extolled calls by Iraqi religious leaders for the people to take up arms and defend their countries, saying, "The aim of this (call) was not to protect a specific sect, but to protect all of Iraq."
Hundreds of thousands of people have been forced out of their homes since the ISIL took the Nineveh provincial capital Mosul overnight.
The United Nations has voiced concerns over reports of crimes committed by the ISIL militants.
PressTV - Hezbollah kept ISIL out of Lebanon: Nasrallah
Hasbara Buster
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2010
- Messages
- 4,612
- Reaction score
- -7
ISIL backed by US, Israel, KSA
By Gordon Duff
Takfiri militants in Iraq
Today, President Obama announced that 300 American “advisors” would be deployed to Iraq to answer the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) terrorist group, the American trained and supplied Al Qaeda/Takfiri militant group unleashed on the people of Syria some years ago.
Obama announced that the US would begin Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) activities in the Middle East in order to learn more about the threats the US trained ISIL forces pose.
Obama, however, may well have been unaware that every 60 minutes an American spy satellite passes over Syria and Iraq with high resolution optical and synthetic aperture radar capable of identifying a single individual.
He also seems unaware that the US maintains a massive signals intelligence base in Al Quds (Jerusalem) that monitors all traffic in the Middle East, a sea of not only antennas but a giant aerostat larger than a football field, thousands of feet in the air that sees and hears everything well into Iran and beyond.
There is much Obama doesn’t seem to know.
BACKGROUND
While militants fight Iraqi forces over that nation’s largest oil refinery, a column of American armor heads toward Damascus, captured from the Iraqi military.
While the media tries to present this as the work of a backward “Al Qaeda” franchise operation, quite something else is afoot.
We haven’t seen a complex military operation of this scope since 9/11. The planning and logistics required are not just nearly inconceivable, they betray the full complicity of more than one operational command with access to satellite intelligence, shipping and rail capabilities and full air supremacy.
MEET THE PLAYERS
For eight years, Dick Cheney and his Israeli/Saudi friends wielded the world’s largest military force, America’s two million men, $1.5 trillion dollar per year juggernaut.
Intelligence sources now tell us that this same trio, hiding behind the ISIL, is waging a corporate war across the Middle East, a surrogate war backed by corporate billions.
Military and intelligence analysts conclude that ISIL operations continue to enjoy full intelligence and logistical support, port and rail facilities through Aqaba, Jordan, safe transit for militants through Israel. All other claimed sources of supply, particularly those through Turkey are a fabrication, deception and cover.
Moving military hardware through Turkey, multiple layers of military and police oversight, harbors under full naval control, is an absolute impossibility. Nothing moves in Turkey without full complicity of both civil and military authority, something that, at this time, simply doesn’t exist.
All of this is meant to hide the complicity, not only of Saudi Arabia and Israel in support of Al Qaeda but that the entire “Arab winter” operation we are seeing, the unraveling of any movement remotely resembling “popular government,” is simply a rerun of the post 9/11 Bush/Blair “heist” sold to the public as the “war on terror.”
The US-built armor and transportation handed over to the ISIL in Mosul is far from the first help they have received “Made in USA.”
From Veterans Today correspondent, Jeffrey Silverman reporting from the Republic of Georgia:
“The supposedly captured US Humvees his troops have taken to Syria are purported to be the inanimate equivalents of the US hostages held for so long in Iran in the late seventies. However, the track record of al-Shishani himself, and the various players in the region, indicates that something else is going on.
The US-backed rebels are losing ground in Syria. ISIL, though presented as the enemy in northern Iraq, has been installed there to finish the job the original rebels have proved unable to.
The capture of the equipment is in fact a strategic handover. It serves two purposes: to equip the anti-Assad forces and to provide cover for equipment being brought out of Afghanistan and handed over to ISIL. It will be said, if anyone notices, that this equipment must have been stolen from northern Iraq, because we have seen this happen on TV, and CNN says so!”
PAVING THE WAY
Unseen by constellations of surveillance satellites and dozens of American drones, the ISIL, the Chechen led “militant” army simply walked into and across Iraq. Though Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia monitor all communications in the region, though armies of “assets” line every road and infest every village, it was all unseen, unheard, and to anyone who understand military operations, unbelievable.
The operational scope seen in the current two front war waged by what we are told is a Takfiri-led movement steeped in religious and tribal extremism. Though this is true to an extent and certainly a factor in recruiting fighters, the “taskings” the ISIL has followed are global, clearly economically driven and tied to an agenda more closely aligned with Wall Street than their secret Saudi paymasters.
DISMEMBERED IRAQ
With a majority Shiite population and a newly established tradition of voting along religious lines, the idea of a Sunni minority taking control of Iraq is a pipe dream.
This is what makes the current attacks something very different than they seem. With Kurdistan aligned, for the time at least, with Baghdad, the real target, Kirkuk and its vast oil fields, should well be outside the ability of the ISIL, no matter how much help they receive from disaffected Sunnis in Iraq, to move against.
Yet the Kirkuk fields and the end hub of the Kirkuk, Baku, Ceyhan Pipeline is the obvious target. As long as these assets along with the oil fields to the South, Basra, are producing, Iraq can and will weather this current storm, providing realistic political reforms are put on the table.
What is yet to be seen is how far those who seek to destroy Iraq are willing to go, what they have promised and to whom.
Iraq has known war, a decade of war with Iran and another against the United States. No nation in recent history has known comparable suffering, not even Vietnam. There will be no winners if Iraq comes apart.
PressTV - ISIL backed by US, Israel, KSA
By Gordon Duff
Takfiri militants in Iraq
Today, President Obama announced that 300 American “advisors” would be deployed to Iraq to answer the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) terrorist group, the American trained and supplied Al Qaeda/Takfiri militant group unleashed on the people of Syria some years ago.
Obama announced that the US would begin Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) activities in the Middle East in order to learn more about the threats the US trained ISIL forces pose.
Obama, however, may well have been unaware that every 60 minutes an American spy satellite passes over Syria and Iraq with high resolution optical and synthetic aperture radar capable of identifying a single individual.
He also seems unaware that the US maintains a massive signals intelligence base in Al Quds (Jerusalem) that monitors all traffic in the Middle East, a sea of not only antennas but a giant aerostat larger than a football field, thousands of feet in the air that sees and hears everything well into Iran and beyond.
There is much Obama doesn’t seem to know.
BACKGROUND
While militants fight Iraqi forces over that nation’s largest oil refinery, a column of American armor heads toward Damascus, captured from the Iraqi military.
While the media tries to present this as the work of a backward “Al Qaeda” franchise operation, quite something else is afoot.
We haven’t seen a complex military operation of this scope since 9/11. The planning and logistics required are not just nearly inconceivable, they betray the full complicity of more than one operational command with access to satellite intelligence, shipping and rail capabilities and full air supremacy.
MEET THE PLAYERS
For eight years, Dick Cheney and his Israeli/Saudi friends wielded the world’s largest military force, America’s two million men, $1.5 trillion dollar per year juggernaut.
Intelligence sources now tell us that this same trio, hiding behind the ISIL, is waging a corporate war across the Middle East, a surrogate war backed by corporate billions.
Military and intelligence analysts conclude that ISIL operations continue to enjoy full intelligence and logistical support, port and rail facilities through Aqaba, Jordan, safe transit for militants through Israel. All other claimed sources of supply, particularly those through Turkey are a fabrication, deception and cover.
Moving military hardware through Turkey, multiple layers of military and police oversight, harbors under full naval control, is an absolute impossibility. Nothing moves in Turkey without full complicity of both civil and military authority, something that, at this time, simply doesn’t exist.
All of this is meant to hide the complicity, not only of Saudi Arabia and Israel in support of Al Qaeda but that the entire “Arab winter” operation we are seeing, the unraveling of any movement remotely resembling “popular government,” is simply a rerun of the post 9/11 Bush/Blair “heist” sold to the public as the “war on terror.”
The US-built armor and transportation handed over to the ISIL in Mosul is far from the first help they have received “Made in USA.”
From Veterans Today correspondent, Jeffrey Silverman reporting from the Republic of Georgia:
“The supposedly captured US Humvees his troops have taken to Syria are purported to be the inanimate equivalents of the US hostages held for so long in Iran in the late seventies. However, the track record of al-Shishani himself, and the various players in the region, indicates that something else is going on.
The US-backed rebels are losing ground in Syria. ISIL, though presented as the enemy in northern Iraq, has been installed there to finish the job the original rebels have proved unable to.
The capture of the equipment is in fact a strategic handover. It serves two purposes: to equip the anti-Assad forces and to provide cover for equipment being brought out of Afghanistan and handed over to ISIL. It will be said, if anyone notices, that this equipment must have been stolen from northern Iraq, because we have seen this happen on TV, and CNN says so!”
PAVING THE WAY
Unseen by constellations of surveillance satellites and dozens of American drones, the ISIL, the Chechen led “militant” army simply walked into and across Iraq. Though Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia monitor all communications in the region, though armies of “assets” line every road and infest every village, it was all unseen, unheard, and to anyone who understand military operations, unbelievable.
The operational scope seen in the current two front war waged by what we are told is a Takfiri-led movement steeped in religious and tribal extremism. Though this is true to an extent and certainly a factor in recruiting fighters, the “taskings” the ISIL has followed are global, clearly economically driven and tied to an agenda more closely aligned with Wall Street than their secret Saudi paymasters.
DISMEMBERED IRAQ
With a majority Shiite population and a newly established tradition of voting along religious lines, the idea of a Sunni minority taking control of Iraq is a pipe dream.
This is what makes the current attacks something very different than they seem. With Kurdistan aligned, for the time at least, with Baghdad, the real target, Kirkuk and its vast oil fields, should well be outside the ability of the ISIL, no matter how much help they receive from disaffected Sunnis in Iraq, to move against.
Yet the Kirkuk fields and the end hub of the Kirkuk, Baku, Ceyhan Pipeline is the obvious target. As long as these assets along with the oil fields to the South, Basra, are producing, Iraq can and will weather this current storm, providing realistic political reforms are put on the table.
What is yet to be seen is how far those who seek to destroy Iraq are willing to go, what they have promised and to whom.
Iraq has known war, a decade of war with Iran and another against the United States. No nation in recent history has known comparable suffering, not even Vietnam. There will be no winners if Iraq comes apart.
PressTV - ISIL backed by US, Israel, KSA
-SINAN-
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2013
- Messages
- 16,746
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
ISIL backed by US, Israel, KSA
By Gordon Duff
Takfiri militants in Iraq
Today, President Obama announced that 300 American “advisors” would be deployed to Iraq to answer the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) terrorist group, the American trained and supplied Al Qaeda/Takfiri militant group unleashed on the people of Syria some years ago.
Obama announced that the US would begin Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) activities in the Middle East in order to learn more about the threats the US trained ISIL forces pose.
Obama, however, may well have been unaware that every 60 minutes an American spy satellite passes over Syria and Iraq with high resolution optical and synthetic aperture radar capable of identifying a single individual.
He also seems unaware that the US maintains a massive signals intelligence base in Al Quds (Jerusalem) that monitors all traffic in the Middle East, a sea of not only antennas but a giant aerostat larger than a football field, thousands of feet in the air that sees and hears everything well into Iran and beyond.
There is much Obama doesn’t seem to know.
BACKGROUND
While militants fight Iraqi forces over that nation’s largest oil refinery, a column of American armor heads toward Damascus, captured from the Iraqi military.
While the media tries to present this as the work of a backward “Al Qaeda” franchise operation, quite something else is afoot.
We haven’t seen a complex military operation of this scope since 9/11. The planning and logistics required are not just nearly inconceivable, they betray the full complicity of more than one operational command with access to satellite intelligence, shipping and rail capabilities and full air supremacy.
MEET THE PLAYERS
For eight years, Dick Cheney and his Israeli/Saudi friends wielded the world’s largest military force, America’s two million men, $1.5 trillion dollar per year juggernaut.
Intelligence sources now tell us that this same trio, hiding behind the ISIL, is waging a corporate war across the Middle East, a surrogate war backed by corporate billions.
Military and intelligence analysts conclude that ISIL operations continue to enjoy full intelligence and logistical support, port and rail facilities through Aqaba, Jordan, safe transit for militants through Israel. All other claimed sources of supply, particularly those through Turkey are a fabrication, deception and cover.
Moving military hardware through Turkey, multiple layers of military and police oversight, harbors under full naval control, is an absolute impossibility. Nothing moves in Turkey without full complicity of both civil and military authority, something that, at this time, simply doesn’t exist.
All of this is meant to hide the complicity, not only of Saudi Arabia and Israel in support of Al Qaeda but that the entire “Arab winter” operation we are seeing, the unraveling of any movement remotely resembling “popular government,” is simply a rerun of the post 9/11 Bush/Blair “heist” sold to the public as the “war on terror.”
The US-built armor and transportation handed over to the ISIL in Mosul is far from the first help they have received “Made in USA.”
From Veterans Today correspondent, Jeffrey Silverman reporting from the Republic of Georgia:
“The supposedly captured US Humvees his troops have taken to Syria are purported to be the inanimate equivalents of the US hostages held for so long in Iran in the late seventies. However, the track record of al-Shishani himself, and the various players in the region, indicates that something else is going on.
The US-backed rebels are losing ground in Syria. ISIL, though presented as the enemy in northern Iraq, has been installed there to finish the job the original rebels have proved unable to.
The capture of the equipment is in fact a strategic handover. It serves two purposes: to equip the anti-Assad forces and to provide cover for equipment being brought out of Afghanistan and handed over to ISIL. It will be said, if anyone notices, that this equipment must have been stolen from northern Iraq, because we have seen this happen on TV, and CNN says so!”
PAVING THE WAY
Unseen by constellations of surveillance satellites and dozens of American drones, the ISIL, the Chechen led “militant” army simply walked into and across Iraq. Though Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia monitor all communications in the region, though armies of “assets” line every road and infest every village, it was all unseen, unheard, and to anyone who understand military operations, unbelievable.
The operational scope seen in the current two front war waged by what we are told is a Takfiri-led movement steeped in religious and tribal extremism. Though this is true to an extent and certainly a factor in recruiting fighters, the “taskings” the ISIL has followed are global, clearly economically driven and tied to an agenda more closely aligned with Wall Street than their secret Saudi paymasters.
DISMEMBERED IRAQ
With a majority Shiite population and a newly established tradition of voting along religious lines, the idea of a Sunni minority taking control of Iraq is a pipe dream.
This is what makes the current attacks something very different than they seem. With Kurdistan aligned, for the time at least, with Baghdad, the real target, Kirkuk and its vast oil fields, should well be outside the ability of the ISIL, no matter how much help they receive from disaffected Sunnis in Iraq, to move against.
Yet the Kirkuk fields and the end hub of the Kirkuk, Baku, Ceyhan Pipeline is the obvious target. As long as these assets along with the oil fields to the South, Basra, are producing, Iraq can and will weather this current storm, providing realistic political reforms are put on the table.
What is yet to be seen is how far those who seek to destroy Iraq are willing to go, what they have promised and to whom.
Iraq has known war, a decade of war with Iran and another against the United States. No nation in recent history has known comparable suffering, not even Vietnam. There will be no winners if Iraq comes apart.
PressTV - ISIL backed by US, Israel, KSA
PissTV forgot to add Turkey, Qatar,GCC countries, EU.
On one hand we have brainless Takfiri terrorists on the other hand we have brainless Mullahs, maybe it's best for the region to them destroy each other.
Hasbara Buster
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2010
- Messages
- 4,612
- Reaction score
- -7
The ISIS Fiasco: It’s Really an Attack on Iran
By Mike Whitney
June 19, 2014 "ICH" - "Counterpunch" - - There’s something that doesn’t ring-true about the coverage of crisis in Iraq. Maybe it’s the way the media reiterates the same, tedious storyline over and over again with only the slightest changes in the narrative. For example, I was reading an article in the Financial Times by Council on Foreign Relations president, Richard Haass, where he says that Maliki’s military forces in Mosul “melted away”. Interestingly, the Haass op-ed was followed by a piece by David Gardener who used almost the very same language. He said the “army melts away.” So, I decided to thumb through the news a bit and see how many other journalists were stung by the “melted away” bug. And, as it happens, there were quite a few, including Politico, NBC News, News Sentinel, Global Post, the National Interest, ABC News etc. Now, the only way an unusual expression like that would pop up with such frequency would be if the authors were getting their talking points from a central authority. (which they probably do.) But the effect, of course, is the exact opposite than what the authors intend, that is, these cookie cutter stories leave readers scratching their heads and feeling like something fishy is going on.
And something fishy IS going on. The whole fable about 1,500 jihadis scaring the pants off 30,000 Iraqi security guards to the point where they threw away their rifles, changed their clothes and headed for the hills, is just not believable. I don’t know what happened in Mosul, but, I’ll tell you one thing, it wasn’t that. That story just doesn’t pass the smell test.
And what happened in Mosul matters too, because nearly every journalist and pundit in the MSM is using the story to discredit Maliki and suggest that maybe Iraq would be better off without him. Haass says that it shows that the army’s “allegiance to the government is paper thin”. Gardener says its a sign of “a fast failing state.” Other op-ed writers like Nicolas Kristof attack Maliki for other reasons, like being too sectarian. Here’s Kristof:
“The debacle in Iraq isn’t President Obama’s fault. It’s not the Republicans’ fault. Both bear some responsibility, but, overwhelmingly, it’s the fault of the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri Kamal al-Maliki.”
Of course, Kristof is no match for the imperial mouthpiece, Tom Friedman. When it comes to pure boneheaded bluster, Friedman is still numero uno. Here’s how the jowly pundit summed it up in an article in the Sunday Times titled “Five Principles for Iraq”:
“Iraq’s Shiite prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, has proved himself not to be a friend of a democratic, pluralistic Iraq either. From Day 1, he has used his office to install Shiites in key security posts, drive out Sunni politicians and generals and direct money to Shiite communities. In a word, Maliki has been a total jerk. Besides being prime minister, he made himself acting minister of defense, minister of the interior and national security adviser, and his cronies also control the Central Bank and the Finance Ministry.
Maliki had a choice — to rule in a sectarian way or in an inclusive way — and he chose sectarianism. We owe him nothing.” (Five Principles for Iraq, Tom Freidman, New York Times)
Leave it to Friedman, eh? In other words, the reason Iraq is such a mess, has nothing to do with the invasion, the occupation, the death squads, Abu Ghraib, the Salvador Option, the decimated infrastructure, the polluted environment, or the vicious sectarian war the US ignited with its demented counterinsurgency program. Oh, no. The reason Iraq is a basketcase is because Maliki is a jerk. Maliki is sectarian. Bad Maliki.
Sound familiar? Putin last week. Maliki this week. Who’s next?
In any event, there is a rational explanation for what happened in Mosul although I cannot verify its authenticity. Check out this post at Syria Perspectives blog:
“…the Iraqi Ba’ath Party’s primary theoretician and Saddam’s right-hand man, ‘Izzaat Ibraaheem Al-Douri, himself a native of Mosul…was searching out allies in a very hostile post-Saddam Iraq … Still on the run and wanted for execution by the Al-Maliki government, Al-Douri still controlled a vast network of Iraqi Sunni Ba’athists who operated in a manner similar to the old Odessa organization that helped escaped Nazis after WWII … he did not have the support structure needed to oust Al-Maliki, so, he found an odd alliance in ISIS through the offices of Erdoghan and Bandar. Our readers should note that the taking of Mosul was accomplished by former Iraqi Ba’athist officers suspiciously abandoning their posts and leaving a 52,000 man military force without any leadership thereby forcing a complete collapse of the city’s defenses. The planning and collaboration cannot be coincidental.” (THE INNER CORE OF ISIS – THE INVASIVE SPECIES, Ziad Fadel, Syrian Perspectives)
I’ve read variations of this same explanation on other blogs, but I have no way of knowing whether they’re true or not. But what I do know, is that it’s a heckuva a lot more believable than the other explanation mainly because it provides enough background and detail to make the scenario seem plausible. The official version–the “melts away” version– doesn’t do that at all. It just lays out this big bogus story expecting people to believe it on faith alone. Why? Because it appeared in all the papers?
That seems like a particularly bad reason for believing anything.
And the “army melting away” story is just one of many inconsistencies in the official media version of events. Another puzzler is why Obama allowed the jihadis to rampage across Iraq without lifting a finger to help. Does that strike anyone else as a bit odd?
When was the last time an acting president failed to respond immediately and forcefully to a similar act of aggression?
Never. The US always responds. And the pattern is always the same. “Stop what you are doing now or we’re going to bomb you to smithereens.” Isn’t that the typical response?
Sure it is. But Obama delivered no such threat this time. Instead, he’s qualified his support for al-Maliki saying that the beleaguered president must “begin accommodating Sunni participation in his government” before the US will lend a hand. What kind of lame response is that? Check out this blurb from MNI News:
The ISIS Fiasco: It’s Really an Attack on Iran
By Mike Whitney
June 19, 2014 "ICH" - "Counterpunch" - - There’s something that doesn’t ring-true about the coverage of crisis in Iraq. Maybe it’s the way the media reiterates the same, tedious storyline over and over again with only the slightest changes in the narrative. For example, I was reading an article in the Financial Times by Council on Foreign Relations president, Richard Haass, where he says that Maliki’s military forces in Mosul “melted away”. Interestingly, the Haass op-ed was followed by a piece by David Gardener who used almost the very same language. He said the “army melts away.” So, I decided to thumb through the news a bit and see how many other journalists were stung by the “melted away” bug. And, as it happens, there were quite a few, including Politico, NBC News, News Sentinel, Global Post, the National Interest, ABC News etc. Now, the only way an unusual expression like that would pop up with such frequency would be if the authors were getting their talking points from a central authority. (which they probably do.) But the effect, of course, is the exact opposite than what the authors intend, that is, these cookie cutter stories leave readers scratching their heads and feeling like something fishy is going on.
And something fishy IS going on. The whole fable about 1,500 jihadis scaring the pants off 30,000 Iraqi security guards to the point where they threw away their rifles, changed their clothes and headed for the hills, is just not believable. I don’t know what happened in Mosul, but, I’ll tell you one thing, it wasn’t that. That story just doesn’t pass the smell test.
And what happened in Mosul matters too, because nearly every journalist and pundit in the MSM is using the story to discredit Maliki and suggest that maybe Iraq would be better off without him. Haass says that it shows that the army’s “allegiance to the government is paper thin”. Gardener says its a sign of “a fast failing state.” Other op-ed writers like Nicolas Kristof attack Maliki for other reasons, like being too sectarian. Here’s Kristof:
“The debacle in Iraq isn’t President Obama’s fault. It’s not the Republicans’ fault. Both bear some responsibility, but, overwhelmingly, it’s the fault of the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri Kamal al-Maliki.”
Of course, Kristof is no match for the imperial mouthpiece, Tom Friedman. When it comes to pure boneheaded bluster, Friedman is still numero uno. Here’s how the jowly pundit summed it up in an article in the Sunday Times titled “Five Principles for Iraq”:
“Iraq’s Shiite prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, has proved himself not to be a friend of a democratic, pluralistic Iraq either. From Day 1, he has used his office to install Shiites in key security posts, drive out Sunni politicians and generals and direct money to Shiite communities. In a word, Maliki has been a total jerk. Besides being prime minister, he made himself acting minister of defense, minister of the interior and national security adviser, and his cronies also control the Central Bank and the Finance Ministry.
Maliki had a choice — to rule in a sectarian way or in an inclusive way — and he chose sectarianism. We owe him nothing.” (Five Principles for Iraq, Tom Freidman, New York Times)
Leave it to Friedman, eh? In other words, the reason Iraq is such a mess, has nothing to do with the invasion, the occupation, the death squads, Abu Ghraib, the Salvador Option, the decimated infrastructure, the polluted environment, or the vicious sectarian war the US ignited with its demented counterinsurgency program. Oh, no. The reason Iraq is a basketcase is because Maliki is a jerk. Maliki is sectarian. Bad Maliki.
Sound familiar? Putin last week. Maliki this week. Who’s next?
In any event, there is a rational explanation for what happened in Mosul although I cannot verify its authenticity. Check out this post at Syria Perspectives blog:
“…the Iraqi Ba’ath Party’s primary theoretician and Saddam’s right-hand man, ‘Izzaat Ibraaheem Al-Douri, himself a native of Mosul…was searching out allies in a very hostile post-Saddam Iraq … Still on the run and wanted for execution by the Al-Maliki government, Al-Douri still controlled a vast network of Iraqi Sunni Ba’athists who operated in a manner similar to the old Odessa organization that helped escaped Nazis after WWII … he did not have the support structure needed to oust Al-Maliki, so, he found an odd alliance in ISIS through the offices of Erdoghan and Bandar. Our readers should note that the taking of Mosul was accomplished by former Iraqi Ba’athist officers suspiciously abandoning their posts and leaving a 52,000 man military force without any leadership thereby forcing a complete collapse of the city’s defenses. The planning and collaboration cannot be coincidental.” (THE INNER CORE OF ISIS – THE INVASIVE SPECIES, Ziad Fadel, Syrian Perspectives)
I’ve read variations of this same explanation on other blogs, but I have no way of knowing whether they’re true or not. But what I do know, is that it’s a heckuva a lot more believable than the other explanation mainly because it provides enough background and detail to make the scenario seem plausible. The official version–the “melts away” version– doesn’t do that at all. It just lays out this big bogus story expecting people to believe it on faith alone. Why? Because it appeared in all the papers?
That seems like a particularly bad reason for believing anything.
And the “army melting away” story is just one of many inconsistencies in the official media version of events. Another puzzler is why Obama allowed the jihadis to rampage across Iraq without lifting a finger to help. Does that strike anyone else as a bit odd?
When was the last time an acting president failed to respond immediately and forcefully to a similar act of aggression?
Never. The US always responds. And the pattern is always the same. “Stop what you are doing now or we’re going to bomb you to smithereens.” Isn’t that the typical response?
Sure it is. But Obama delivered no such threat this time. Instead, he’s qualified his support for al-Maliki saying that the beleaguered president must “begin accommodating Sunni participation in his government” before the US will lend a hand. What kind of lame response is that? Check out this blurb from MNI News:
“President Barack Obama Friday warned Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the United States wants him to begin accommodating Sunni participation in his government, or see the United States withhold the help he needs, short of U.S. troops on the ground, to ward off an attack on Baghdad.
Obama added the emphasis of an appearance before TV cameras to his midday message, that while he will be considering options for some military intervention in the days ahead, the next move is up to Maliki.”
(Obama Warns Iraq’s Maliki,Looking for Sunni-Shia Accommodation, MNI)
Have you ever read such nonsense in your life? Imagine if , let’s say, the jihadi hordes had gathered just 50 miles outside of London and were threatening to invade at any minute. Do you think Obama would deliver the same message to UK Prime Minister David Cameron?
“Gee, Dave, we’d really like to help out, but you need to put a couple of these guys in your government first. Would that be okay, Dave? Just think of it as affirmative action for terrorists.”
It might sound crazy, but that’s what Obama wants Maliki to do. So, what’s going on here? Why is Obama delivering ultimatums when he should be helping out? Could it be that Obama has a different agenda than Maliki’s and that the present situation actually works to his benefit?
It sure looks that way. Just take a look at what Friedman says further on in the same article. It helps to clarify the point. He says:
Obama added the emphasis of an appearance before TV cameras to his midday message, that while he will be considering options for some military intervention in the days ahead, the next move is up to Maliki.”
(Obama Warns Iraq’s Maliki,Looking for Sunni-Shia Accommodation, MNI)
Have you ever read such nonsense in your life? Imagine if , let’s say, the jihadi hordes had gathered just 50 miles outside of London and were threatening to invade at any minute. Do you think Obama would deliver the same message to UK Prime Minister David Cameron?
“Gee, Dave, we’d really like to help out, but you need to put a couple of these guys in your government first. Would that be okay, Dave? Just think of it as affirmative action for terrorists.”
It might sound crazy, but that’s what Obama wants Maliki to do. So, what’s going on here? Why is Obama delivering ultimatums when he should be helping out? Could it be that Obama has a different agenda than Maliki’s and that the present situation actually works to his benefit?
It sure looks that way. Just take a look at what Friedman says further on in the same article. It helps to clarify the point. He says:
“Maybe Iran, and its wily Revolutionary Guards Quds Force commander, Gen. Qassem Suleimani, aren’t so smart after all. It was Iran that armed its Iraqi Shiite allies with the specially shaped bombs that killed and wounded many American soldiers. Iran wanted us out. It was Iran that pressured Maliki into not signing an agreement with the U.S. to give our troops legal cover to stay in Iraq. Iran wanted to be the regional hegemon. Well, Suleimani: “This Bud’s for you.” Now your forces are overextended in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, and ours are back home. Have a nice day.” (5 Principles for Iraq, Tom Friedman, New York Times)
Interesting, eh? Friedman basically admits that this whole fiasco is about Iran who turned out to be the biggest winner in the Iraq War sweepstakes. Naturally, that pisses off people in Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh to no end, so they’ve cooked up this goofy plan to either remove Maliki altogether or significantly trim his wings. Isn’t that what’s going on? And that’s why Obama is holding a gun to Maliki’s head and telling him what hoops he has to jump through in order to get US help. Because he’s determined to weaken Iran’s hegemonic grip on Baghdad.
Friedman also notes the Status of Forces agreement which would have allowed U.S. troops to stay in Iraq. Al Maliki rejected the deal which enraged Washington setting the stage for this latest terrorist farce. Obama intends to reverse that decision by hook or crook. This is just the way Washington does business, by twisting arms and breaking legs. Everybody knows this.
To understand what’s going on today in Iraq, we need to know a little history. In 2002, The Bush administration commissioned the Rand Corporation “to develop a Shaping Strategy for pacifying Muslim populations where the US has commercial or strategic interests.” The plan they came up with–which was called “US Strategy in the Muslim World after 9-11”– recommended that the US, “Align its policy with Shiite groups who aspire to have more participation in government and greater freedoms of political and religious expression. If this alignment can be brought about, it could erect a barrier against radical Islamic movements and may create a foundation for a stable U.S. position in the Middle East.”
The Bushies decided to follow this wacky plan which proved to be a huge tactical error. By throwing their weight behind the Shia, they triggered a massive Sunni rebellion that initiated as many as 100 attacks per day on US soldiers. That, in turn, led to a savage US counterinsurgency that wound up killing tens of thousands of Sunnis while reducing much of the country to ruins. Petraeus’ vicious onslaught was concealed behind the misleading PR smokescreen of sectarian civil war. It was actually a genocidal war against the people who Obama now tacitly supports in Mosul and Tikrit.
So there’s been a huge change of policy, right? And the fact that the US has taken a hands-off approach to Isis suggests that the Obama administration has abandoned the Rand strategy altogether and is looking for ways to support Sunni-led groups in their effort to topple the Al Assad regime in Damascus, weaken Hezbollah, and curtail Iran’s power in the region. While the strategy is ruthless and despicable, at least it makes sense in the perverted logic of imperial expansion, which the Rand plan never did.
What is happening in Iraq today was anticipated in a 2007 Seymour Hersh article titled “The Redirection.” Author Tony Cartalucci gives a great summary of the piece in his own article. He says:
Interesting, eh? Friedman basically admits that this whole fiasco is about Iran who turned out to be the biggest winner in the Iraq War sweepstakes. Naturally, that pisses off people in Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh to no end, so they’ve cooked up this goofy plan to either remove Maliki altogether or significantly trim his wings. Isn’t that what’s going on? And that’s why Obama is holding a gun to Maliki’s head and telling him what hoops he has to jump through in order to get US help. Because he’s determined to weaken Iran’s hegemonic grip on Baghdad.
Friedman also notes the Status of Forces agreement which would have allowed U.S. troops to stay in Iraq. Al Maliki rejected the deal which enraged Washington setting the stage for this latest terrorist farce. Obama intends to reverse that decision by hook or crook. This is just the way Washington does business, by twisting arms and breaking legs. Everybody knows this.
To understand what’s going on today in Iraq, we need to know a little history. In 2002, The Bush administration commissioned the Rand Corporation “to develop a Shaping Strategy for pacifying Muslim populations where the US has commercial or strategic interests.” The plan they came up with–which was called “US Strategy in the Muslim World after 9-11”– recommended that the US, “Align its policy with Shiite groups who aspire to have more participation in government and greater freedoms of political and religious expression. If this alignment can be brought about, it could erect a barrier against radical Islamic movements and may create a foundation for a stable U.S. position in the Middle East.”
The Bushies decided to follow this wacky plan which proved to be a huge tactical error. By throwing their weight behind the Shia, they triggered a massive Sunni rebellion that initiated as many as 100 attacks per day on US soldiers. That, in turn, led to a savage US counterinsurgency that wound up killing tens of thousands of Sunnis while reducing much of the country to ruins. Petraeus’ vicious onslaught was concealed behind the misleading PR smokescreen of sectarian civil war. It was actually a genocidal war against the people who Obama now tacitly supports in Mosul and Tikrit.
So there’s been a huge change of policy, right? And the fact that the US has taken a hands-off approach to Isis suggests that the Obama administration has abandoned the Rand strategy altogether and is looking for ways to support Sunni-led groups in their effort to topple the Al Assad regime in Damascus, weaken Hezbollah, and curtail Iran’s power in the region. While the strategy is ruthless and despicable, at least it makes sense in the perverted logic of imperial expansion, which the Rand plan never did.
What is happening in Iraq today was anticipated in a 2007 Seymour Hersh article titled “The Redirection.” Author Tony Cartalucci gives a great summary of the piece in his own article. He says:
“The Redirection,” documents…US, Saudi, and Israeli intentions to create and deploy sectarian extremists region-wide to confront Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hersh would note that these “sectarian extremists” were either tied to Al Qaeda, or Al Qaeda itself. The ISIS army moving toward Baghdad is the final manifestation of this conspiracy, a standing army operating with impunity, threatening to topple the Syrian government, purge pro-Iranian forces in Iraq, and even threatening Iran itself by building a bridge from Al Qaeda’s NATO safe havens in Turkey, across northern Iraq, and up to Iran’s borders directly…
It is a defacto re-invasion of Iraq by Western interests – but this time without Western forces directly participating – rather a proxy force the West is desperately attempting to disavow any knowledge of or any connection to.” (America’s Covert Re-Invasion of Iraq, Tony Cartalucci, Information Clearinghouse)
So, now we’re getting to the crux of the matter, right? Now we should be able to identify the policy that is guiding events. What we know for sure is that the US wants to break Iran’s grip on Iraq. But how do they plan to achieve that; that’s the question?
Well, they could use their old friends the Baathists who they’ve been in touch with since 2007. That might work. But then they’d have to add a few jihadis to the mix to make it look believable.
Okay. But does that mean that Obama is actively supporting Isis?
No, not necessarily. Isis is already connected to other Intel agencies and might not need direct support from the US. (Note: Many analysts have stated that the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) receives generous donations from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both of whom are staunch US allies. According to London’s Daily Express: “through allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the West (has) supported militant rebel groups which have since mutated into ISIS and other al‑Qaeda connected militias. ( Daily Telegraph, June 12, 2014)
What’s important as far as Obama is concerned, is that the strategic objectives of Isis and those of the United States coincide. Both entities seek greater political representation for Sunnis, both want to minimize Iranian influence in Iraq, and both support a soft partition plan that former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Leslie H. Gelb, called “The only viable strategy to correct (Iraq ‘s) historical defect and move in stages toward a three-state solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south.” This is why Obama hasn’t attacked the militia even though it has marched to within 50 miles of Baghdad. It’s because the US benefits from these developments.
Let’s summarize:
Does the US Government “support” or “not support” terrorism depending on the situation?
Yes.
Have foreign Intel agencies supplied terrorist organizations in Syria with weapons and logistical support?
Yes.
Has the CIA?
Yes.
Has the Obama administration signaled that they would like to get rid of al Maliki or greatly reduce his power?
Yes.
Is this because they think the present arrangement strengthens Iran’s regional influence?
Yes.
Will Isis invade Baghdad?
No. (This is just a guess, but I expect that something has been already worked out between the Obama team and the Baathist leaders. If Baghdad was really in danger, Obama would probably be acting with greater earnestness.)
Will Syria and Iraq be partitioned?
Yes.
Is Isis a CIA creation?
No. According to Ziad Fadel, “ISIS is the creation of the one man who played Alqaeda like a yo-yo. Bandar bin Sultan.”
Does Isis take orders from Washington or the CIA?
Probably not, although their actions appear to coincide with US strategic objectives. (which is the point!)
Is Obama’s reluctance to launch an attack on Isis indicate that he wants to diminish Iran’s power in Iraq, redraw the map of the Middle East, and create politically powerless regions run by warlords and tribal leaders?
Yes, yes and yes.
It is a defacto re-invasion of Iraq by Western interests – but this time without Western forces directly participating – rather a proxy force the West is desperately attempting to disavow any knowledge of or any connection to.” (America’s Covert Re-Invasion of Iraq, Tony Cartalucci, Information Clearinghouse)
So, now we’re getting to the crux of the matter, right? Now we should be able to identify the policy that is guiding events. What we know for sure is that the US wants to break Iran’s grip on Iraq. But how do they plan to achieve that; that’s the question?
Well, they could use their old friends the Baathists who they’ve been in touch with since 2007. That might work. But then they’d have to add a few jihadis to the mix to make it look believable.
Okay. But does that mean that Obama is actively supporting Isis?
No, not necessarily. Isis is already connected to other Intel agencies and might not need direct support from the US. (Note: Many analysts have stated that the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) receives generous donations from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both of whom are staunch US allies. According to London’s Daily Express: “through allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the West (has) supported militant rebel groups which have since mutated into ISIS and other al‑Qaeda connected militias. ( Daily Telegraph, June 12, 2014)
What’s important as far as Obama is concerned, is that the strategic objectives of Isis and those of the United States coincide. Both entities seek greater political representation for Sunnis, both want to minimize Iranian influence in Iraq, and both support a soft partition plan that former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Leslie H. Gelb, called “The only viable strategy to correct (Iraq ‘s) historical defect and move in stages toward a three-state solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south.” This is why Obama hasn’t attacked the militia even though it has marched to within 50 miles of Baghdad. It’s because the US benefits from these developments.
Let’s summarize:
Does the US Government “support” or “not support” terrorism depending on the situation?
Yes.
Have foreign Intel agencies supplied terrorist organizations in Syria with weapons and logistical support?
Yes.
Has the CIA?
Yes.
Has the Obama administration signaled that they would like to get rid of al Maliki or greatly reduce his power?
Yes.
Is this because they think the present arrangement strengthens Iran’s regional influence?
Yes.
Will Isis invade Baghdad?
No. (This is just a guess, but I expect that something has been already worked out between the Obama team and the Baathist leaders. If Baghdad was really in danger, Obama would probably be acting with greater earnestness.)
Will Syria and Iraq be partitioned?
Yes.
Is Isis a CIA creation?
No. According to Ziad Fadel, “ISIS is the creation of the one man who played Alqaeda like a yo-yo. Bandar bin Sultan.”
Does Isis take orders from Washington or the CIA?
Probably not, although their actions appear to coincide with US strategic objectives. (which is the point!)
Is Obama’s reluctance to launch an attack on Isis indicate that he wants to diminish Iran’s power in Iraq, redraw the map of the Middle East, and create politically powerless regions run by warlords and tribal leaders?
Yes, yes and yes.
The ISIS Fiasco: It’s Really an Attack on Iran
do whatever fck u want ! don't drag India and Kashmir into this .
Danish saleem
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2014
- Messages
- 2,231
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
US always did what suits Iran!
Irfan Baloch
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Messages
- 20,975
- Reaction score
- 214
- Country
- Location
I hope Syria gets rid of the foreign terrorists. sadly the terrorism in Iraq is many fold. and its the act of desperation by the supporters of FSA who have made the most horrid and savage version of terrorists yet.
but I would hope that Iranian fanatics dont jump into this fight in the name of saving their shia faith. because its the war of Iraq's existence as a unified entity and the people of all faith have been the victims of ISIS.. yes , as usual all foreign supported terrorists like FSA, Taliban, Alqaeda and ISIS deliberately target Shias but they never hesitate from killing the Sunnis as well this is why the population from the north is running to Kurdish areas of Iraq.
not sure how
naval and economic blockade suits Iran
freezing its assets suits Iran
shooting down its airliner suits Iran
destroying half of its navy during the 80s stand off
and assassinating its scientists suits Iran
assisting Jundullah terrorists suits Iran
you have a very interesting version of suiting Iran,.
going by that Logic.. TTP always did what Suits Pakistan?
LOL and evil Klingons too
Press TV is a joke .. I know that the Ayatullahs are getting restless to fight the Saudi funded wahabis but thats exactly what the Saudis will want them to do and then turn this conflict into a Persian -Arab one and unfortunately for Ayatullahs they will loose because even the NATO will come out to help the Arab monarchies and everyone will forget what FSA , Al Qaeda and ISIS has done.
Last edited:
Hasbara Buster
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2010
- Messages
- 4,612
- Reaction score
- -7
US trained ISIL terrorists at secret Jordan base: Report
US military instructors trained Takfiri militants of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) at a secret base in Jordan in 2012, informed Jordanian officials say.
The officials, who were not identified, revealed to American news website WorldNetDaily (WND) that dozens of ISIL members received training as part of covert aid to militants fighting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
The Jordanian officials said the 2012 training of the ISIL operatives was not supposed to be used for any future offensive in Iraq.
They said all ISIL militants trained in Jordan had been vetted for any links to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda.
German weekly Der Spiegel had also reported last March that Americans were training militants in Jordan for fighting in Syria.
WND further reported that, according to a source in contact with a high official in the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the Obama administration has been aware for two months that the al-Qaida-inspired group, which has taken over two Iraqi cities and now is threatening Baghdad, was also training fighters in Turkey.
The source told WND that at least one of the ISIL training camps is in the vicinity of Turkish air base, Incirlik, which houses American personnel and equipment.
After being trained in Turkey, thousands of ISIL militants sneaked into Iraq to wreak havoc on the country.
Over the past days, Iraqi armed forces have been engaged in fierce clashes with the ISIL terrorists, who have threatened to take their acts of violence to other Iraqi cities, including the capital, Baghdad.
However, their advance has been slowed down as Iraqi military forces and volunteer fighters have begun engaging them on several fronts, pushing the militants out of several areas they had earlier overrun.
PressTV - US trained ISIL terrorists at secret Jordan base: Report
US military instructors trained Takfiri militants of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) at a secret base in Jordan in 2012, informed Jordanian officials say.
The officials, who were not identified, revealed to American news website WorldNetDaily (WND) that dozens of ISIL members received training as part of covert aid to militants fighting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
The Jordanian officials said the 2012 training of the ISIL operatives was not supposed to be used for any future offensive in Iraq.
They said all ISIL militants trained in Jordan had been vetted for any links to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda.
German weekly Der Spiegel had also reported last March that Americans were training militants in Jordan for fighting in Syria.
WND further reported that, according to a source in contact with a high official in the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the Obama administration has been aware for two months that the al-Qaida-inspired group, which has taken over two Iraqi cities and now is threatening Baghdad, was also training fighters in Turkey.
The source told WND that at least one of the ISIL training camps is in the vicinity of Turkish air base, Incirlik, which houses American personnel and equipment.
After being trained in Turkey, thousands of ISIL militants sneaked into Iraq to wreak havoc on the country.
Over the past days, Iraqi armed forces have been engaged in fierce clashes with the ISIL terrorists, who have threatened to take their acts of violence to other Iraqi cities, including the capital, Baghdad.
However, their advance has been slowed down as Iraqi military forces and volunteer fighters have begun engaging them on several fronts, pushing the militants out of several areas they had earlier overrun.
PressTV - US trained ISIL terrorists at secret Jordan base: Report
Jihad_
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2013
- Messages
- 551
- Reaction score
- -1
Press TV quoting a NeoCon blog, wich in itself gives links to other sites, saying US is training some FSA and offcourse not ISIS, who have their own trainingcamps.
On a sidenote:
Last edited:
raptor22
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2011
- Messages
- 7,064
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
I'm not sure it is a reliable source or not:
Qatari Embassy in the Libyan capital Tripoli, in which it says that Qatar has managed to prepare about 1,800 fighters of volunteers who are coming from North African countries and this to fight in Iraq and join the terrorist organization T.he document carried the signature of Acting Qatari Embassy in Libya, (Naif Abdullah Al-Emadi), in which he stressed that the elements of volunteers have been finished of their training and military combat and deal with heavy weapons, especially who prepared in the camps of (Zintan , Benghazi , Zawiya and Misurata) in Libya. The proposed charge d'affaires in Libya,said that the country of his government will send these fighters in three parts and will go through the Libyan ports to Turkey and then to enter Iraq through Kurdistan region.
The document also speaks about a Turkish support and huge cooperation , which revealed that its involvement in the preparations for sending fighters to Iraq through coordination with Qatar to receive them and then facilitate their entry across the Turkish-Iraqi border adjacent to the Kurdistan region of Iraq, which witnessed the worst wave of violence since the occupation of terrorist group Daash to Iraq's cities such as Mosul and Salah al-Din cities and others ;which lead the whole country to risk and on the verge of a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis, and especially after the use of al-Maliki, Iraqi Prime Minister to the Iranian troop after the rejection of the U.S. to make air strike on sites of Daash.
-SINAN-
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2013
- Messages
- 16,746
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
I'm not sure it is a reliable source or not:
Qatari Embassy in the Libyan capital Tripoli, in which it says that Qatar has managed to prepare about 1,800 fighters of volunteers who are coming from North African countries and this to fight in Iraq and join the terrorist organization T.he document carried the signature of Acting Qatari Embassy in Libya, (Naif Abdullah Al-Emadi), in which he stressed that the elements of volunteers have been finished of their training and military combat and deal with heavy weapons, especially who prepared in the camps of (Zintan , Benghazi , Zawiya and Misurata) in Libya. The proposed charge d'affaires in Libya,said that the country of his government will send these fighters in three parts and will go through the Libyan ports to Turkey and then to enter Iraq through Kurdistan region.
The document also speaks about a Turkish support and huge cooperation , which revealed that its involvement in the preparations for sending fighters to Iraq through coordination with Qatar to receive them and then facilitate their entry across the Turkish-Iraqi border adjacent to the Kurdistan region of Iraq, which witnessed the worst wave of violence since the occupation of terrorist group Daash to Iraq's cities such as Mosul and Salah al-Din cities and others ;which lead the whole country to risk and on the verge of a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis, and especially after the use of al-Maliki, Iraqi Prime Minister to the Iranian troop after the rejection of the U.S. to make air strike on sites of Daash.
Don't think it is real.
Similar threads
