It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 09:00 PM
a reply to: fnpmitchreturns

Any evidence of them being funded by the US? Or is this conjecture?

EDIT: Me thinks you're confusing the "moderate" Syrian rebels with ISIS, who the US has increased funding and support to in order to combat ISIA and Al Nusra


As Western leaders publicly push the Syrian regime and the opposition to the Geneva II peace conference that begins Wednesday Washington has also been quietly supporting moves by Saudi Arabia and Qatar to give weapons and cash to rebel groups to fight al-Qaeda's Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS) in Syria.

One source said the US was itself handing out millions of dollars to rebel groups best equipped to take on the extremists while another confirmed America was providing non-lethal aid.

The development marks a new phase in the conflict, with international backers working directly with rebel commanders to target al-Qaeda cells, who are seen as a major threat by Western intelligence agencies.

"Everyone is offering us funding to fight them," said one commander in a rebel group affiliated to the Western-backed Supreme Military Council. "We used to have no weapons with which to fight the regime, but now the stocks are full."

edit on 17/6/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 09:01 PM
People need to wake up and smell the coffee. Stop blaming the west and Israel for all the events in the Middle East, it is just an excuse for not recognising the facts.

ISIS might be the name of an Egyptian goddess, the predecessor to many (I have written about this on other threads) but it is imperative to see the reality that the whole ME thing isn't a veiled attempt at goddess worship from Zionists / Illuminati / Muslims or any other women hating misogynist male centric attempt at religion. Stop being fooled.

Realise that in places like the ME, the policies regarding women aren't great.

Consider these practices and how unacceptable they are.

Women have been stoned to death in public by their own families and others for being raped / refusing marriage / falling in love / dancing / smiling / removing a head to toe black cloak covering all but their eyes

Girls having their 'pleasure sensing intimate body parts' routinely removed so they cannot feel sexual pleasure otherwise called FGM

Men making arranged marriages, forcing girls and women to marry regardless of their own opinions or feelings

Men making arranged marriages of girls, some as young as 8, that they then consider as 'owned' by them and committing sexual relationships upon them sometimes to the point that they died, or those post puberty that died in childbirth due to being too young and not yet grown enough for being able to physically cope with childbirth, or those that survived that having prolapsed uteruses due to being too young for giving birth

Men that have killed their wives for little or nothing such as their parents not paying enough money to them as part of a marriage deal

Women being not allowed to work, or drive, or dance with anyone but other women or their husbands

Women being considered property of their families then their husbands with little or no human rights at all

Women being forced to wear veils and hijab, often covering all but their eyes

It is not the religion of woman love or worship.

Some of it has been attempted in the UK, there are laws being put in place making arranged marriages illegal and for combatting 'Trojan horse' madrasa rule in schools where they have been teaching against curriculum things like denying science lessons and teaching female subservience instead.

Tribalism has been around in the Middle East for a very long time and has caused wars about succession and rule and now there is the added emphasis on political power and control of oil fields.

The west are involved because of arms deals and oil deals. Political affiliation and global politics are at play but a lot of funding for ISIS has come from the Gulf, taking over oil fields in Syria and the looted bank of Mosul.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is now the richest terror group in the world, after stealing $429 million from the central bank in Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, which ISIS has occupied since earlier this week. While it will certainly gave their finances a boost, the group has been making millions in other ways for some time to fund a vast array of activities.

“ISIS is most likely getting funding from outside sources and private funding from individuals in the Gulf region,” he said.

A report from the Council on Foreign Relations says that many believe supporters in Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia provide “the bulk of past funding.”

However, a key strategic source of funds for ISIS is local populations in the areas it controls.

Even before taking over Mosul, "the group extorted taxes from businesses small and large, netting upwards of of $8 million a month, according to some estimates,” the CFR report says.

The Shiites are concentrated in Iran, southern Iraq and southern Lebanon. But there are significant Shiite communities in Saudi Arabia and Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India as well.

"There is definitely an emerging struggle between Sunni and Shia to define not only the pattern of local politics, but also the relationship between the Islamic world and the West," says Daniel Brumberg of Georgetown University, author of Reinventing Khomeini: The Struggle for Reform in Iran.

That struggle is playing out now in Iraq, but it is a struggle that could spread to many Arab nations in the Middle East and to Iran, which is Persian.

One other factor about the Shiites bears mentioning. "Shiites constitute 80 percent of the native population of the oil-rich Persian Gulf region," notes Yitzhak Nakash, author of The Shi'is of Iraq.

Shiites predominate where there is oil in Iran, in Iraq and in the oil-rich areas of eastern Saudi Arabia as well.

The original split between Sunnis and Shiites occurred soon after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, in the year 632.

"There was a dispute in the community of Muslims in present-day Saudi Arabia over the question of succession," says Augustus Norton, author of Hezbollah: A Short History. "That is to say, who is the rightful successor to the prophet?"

Over the next centuries, Islam clashed with the European Crusaders, with the Mongol conquerors from Central Asia, and was spread farther by the Ottoman Turks.

By the year 1500, Persia was a seat of Sunni Islamic learning, but all that was about to change with the arrival of Azeri conquerors. They established the Safavid dynasty in Persia — modern-day Iran — and made it Shiite.

"That dynasty actually came out of what's now eastern Turkey," says Gause, the University of Vermont professor. "They were a Turkic dynasty, one of the leftovers of the Mongol invasions that had disrupted the Middle East for a couple of centuries. The Safavid dynasty made it its political project to convert Iran into a Shia country."

Shiites gradually became the glue that held Persia together and distinguished it from the Ottoman Empire to its west, which was Sunni, and the Mughal Muslims to the east in India, also Sunni.

"Why has there been such a long and protracted disagreement and tension between these two sects?" asks Ray Takeyh, author of Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic. "It has to do with political power."

In the 20th century, that meant a complex political dynamic involving Sunni and Shiites, Arabs and Persians, colonizers and colonized, oil, and the involvement of the superpowers

edit on 17-6-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 09:34 PM
“All warfare is based on deception.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“Manufacturing Consent”: Bernard-Henri Lévy, the “New Philosopher” Selling Military Adventures of the Global Elite

posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 09:53 PM
Any support by the US black op Intelligence services for ISIL will be surreptitious of course.

Recall it was reported that the ISI of Pakistan was behind that 100 thousand wired to Muhammad Ata

The US used the ISI of Pakistan to aid the Mujahadin in Afghanistan.

They always use cutouts.

According to this story below


the US trained some ISIL forces in the civil war in Syria. Accordingly they didn’t know the ISIL rebels would turn on Iraq after getting walloped in Syria, or that they were terrorist. Gee I sure believe the Americans!

The problem is that the US has no credibility, they have been caught in so many lies.

posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 04:05 AM
Isis is the new group that 'emerged' out of the wrack know as Al Qaida and is most likely a reorganisation of the extremist around the Israel area supplemented by European extremist.

After the killing of Osama Bin Laden as well as several failed terrorist attacks and some attacks that caused heavy criticizing from their own ranks Al Qaida has become weaker. Focusing their strength more around the Afghanistan / Pakistan regions with and branching of from there forth. Basically the group has lost internal support in those area's that were not really their staging ground to begin with.

The surge back is the arrival of two new extremist groups; Boko Haram and Isis. Boko Haram is basically the offensive spearhead that is trying too spread Islam religion into Africa's middle and southern regions. Isis is a regrouped organisation feuled by extremist of Syrie, Libanon, Palastina, Iraq and so forth and then supplemented with money from Saudi Arabia combined with Russian bought weapons and reinforced by Islamist extremist from Europe (though in smaller numbers these people bring in knowledge and education and have often been on combat-schools primarily kick-boxing).
While Boko Haram is trying to convert middle- and southern Africa to Islam, it is Isis that tries to take advantage of the massive power vacuum created by the second golf war and social instability in the region following the 'Spring' revolutions that many countries there have had. It is Isis their goal to reform a new Islamic empire similar in size as the old empires around 1000 a.c. but far stricter to Islam governed rule. (so no science and education in general unless religiously approved).

Taking out the group requires more then just 'some work'. First of all Europe need to toughen up. Right now it seems European political leaders are closing their eyes for Islamic groups to afraid that they will rise up internally. Basically the stage is set to let Europe become Islamic (I live there so I know what I am saying). There are constitutional laws that allow a nation in Europe to withdraw citizenship if they join a foreign army, but they aren't being waved around against Jihadi's that go and fight with Isis; instead they just 'monitor them' and do nothing. They are 'considering' to withdraw financial benefits. Talk about spineless actions. I am calling it now, we have a new European world war within 50 years because the leaders now don't respond the way they should.

But its more then that; Isis is a hybrid group and the best way is to make use of different thinking Islamic people in the area to fight them. In the mean time I would spend time to infiltrate the cells and pervert their views of thinking in a more self destructive way. Fortunately religious people will accept any give tough as long as it seems a upright view of their religious teachings.
Create honey-pots on the internet and then spur new toughs and methods that seem to come from general and upright believe in Islam extremist interpretations and use the honey-pots to spread is and pervert the general thinking of the group itself. That way you can distance them even further from the mainstream thinkers and eventually predict, monitor and control their actions easier. Just saying tough.

edit on 18-6-2014 by AncientShade because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 05:10 AM
At last, this thread is now getting some sensible replies!

Here's something to have a look at, the leader of ISIS claims direct descent from the prophet Muhammad and he was born in the area that was once Assyria.


posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 06:12 AM
This is why I hate the media. They keep calling it ISIS, but that is the wrong translation for English. It is actually ISIL which stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 06:32 AM
The reason you folks are not thinking CLEARLY is the fact that this little rag tag band of at most 10-12,000 are running loose in the DESERT, not mountains, or jungle where they could hide.

Now consider this fact.

The German army of over half a million was trapped in Russia and had to surrender. Many other times in military history armies of well trained men have been trapped and have had to surrender.

This ISIL is surrounded by major states with huge Armies: Turkey; Iran: still even Syria: Jordan: The UN and NATO countries if necessary COULD EASILY FORM A TASK FORCE AND ROUTE THEM!


You trying to tell me they don’t have some powerful intelligence or state behind them?

I believe this group is surreptitiously sponsored by black op intelligence of the US or NATO.

posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 06:35 AM

originally posted by: Rycas
At last, this thread is now getting some sensible replies!

Here's something to have a look at, the leader of ISIS claims direct descent from the prophet Muhammad and he was born in the area that was once Assyria.



Abu Bakr was not a descendant he was the Father-in-Law....Abu Baker did become the Caliph after Mohammad died, so it is apparent the Prophet & his father-in-law were very close friends...

further more : " ..."Abu Bakr", the father of the foal of the camel.[24]...
see source:

Abu Bakr was a thin man with white skin.[22] Tabari relates (Suyuti also relates the same through Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi's report) from Aisha her description of Abu Bakr:

He was a man with fair skin, thin, emaciated, with a sparse beard, a slightly hunched frame, sunken eyes and protruding forehead, and the bases of his fingers were hairless.[23]

i think the current leader of ISIS/ISIL, assumed the name Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi --> is also light skinned and thin bearded
and i still contend that the Saudi Monarchy which supports the strict & radical views of Sunni Muslims/Wahhabi et al... have given this radical, eschatological sect the go-ahead to wreak chaos throughout the Levant starting with Syria-Iraq

edit on th30140309178718432014 by St Udio because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 06:44 AM
a reply to: St Udio

I know that the leader of ISIL is using a pseudonym, and I don't particularly believe he is a direct descendant of Muhammad but he is claiming it and his followers are choosing to believe it. And I think your bang on right about Saudi Arabia. A star for you sir.

posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 07:01 AM
Why is every thread here anymore a race to be the first to blame the U.S.? Why is it so hard for people to understand that while there are certainly bad men and women in the U.S. government--and EVERY OTHER government--there are also genuinely bad people all over the World? I mean really, it's like NO ONE should ever be held accountable for their actions unless they live and work in the U.S., like NO ONE ever does anything bad unless the mean old U.S. "makes" them do it, like no wars ever were fought and no one ever did anything bad or mean unless the U.S. forced them to. SMH...

posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 07:12 AM
I've been thinking about this Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi leader of ISIL/ ISIS.

If Abdullah ibn Abi Quhafa ( the original Abu Bakr) was Caliph after Muhammad, and the Muslim world is waiting for the Mahdi could it be what this man is playing for is not only to be proclaimed Caliph but also Mahdi? Thus the claimed descent from Muhammad. I don't know much about the Islamic eschatological prophesies of the Mahdi, perhaps someone could shed some light? I could be well of the mark here but could it be an explanation for the claim of being a descendant of Muhammad ?

posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 07:16 AM

originally posted by: jaffo
Why is every thread here anymore a race to be the first to blame the U.S.? Why is it so hard for people to understand that while there are certainly bad men and women in the U.S. government--and EVERY OTHER government--there are also genuinely bad people all over the World? I mean really, it's like NO ONE should ever be held accountable for their actions unless they live and work in the U.S., like NO ONE ever does anything bad unless the mean old U.S. "makes" them do it, like no wars ever were fought and no one ever did anything bad or mean unless the U.S. forced them to. SMH...

I agree! Some people on here are starting to sound like the Muslims. It is all the fault of the great satan/ little satan. For crying out loud listen to yourselves.

posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 10:51 AM
Okay here is a youtube from this op

posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 11:02 AM
a reply to: teslarocks

They are not a new, they were there before the US came to liberate and get rid of Saddam in fact, they were there before the Russians were in the middle east. Issis is just a new name on an older head, in fact its not the only head this hydra has, and like the hydra when you cut one off another will grow and they just may call themself something else. What do you think would happen when you tried to occupy those territories? They are funded by rich and powerful people and groups and countries who want to bring in a new order for in the middle east and have been sponsored in many cases and many liberation's and many other proxy wars both by the USA or Russian interests or you name it. I forget there current leaders name its pretty long, but who do you think there long named leader is sponsored by? Even Hitler was sponsored by people and groups in and before WW2, all of which made a killing in profits on both sides of that war. Its the same thing here only on a smaller scale.

That and they pick up gear from the ones the US left in those countries, guns, tanks, everything else that was left there will eventually find its way into there hands. When we invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam they were there, not only was Saddam funded by us but we also gave them weapons to fight against others in many countries, who do you think were the rebels in Libya and Syria? We first funded Saddam to keep others in line to begin with. What is happening now in Iraq is but the logical conclusion to the set up, and its ever on going.

OK now we got people like bush and Cheney who not only want to go to war but own the companies who feed the war-machine so ya they even charge the soldiers for those utensils there using, who do you think owns those companies? That's right Cheney and comp so there making money on all fronts they probably charge them for the toilet paper to at a premium. And lets face it, there were a few reasons why we went to Iraq, and all have nothing to do with spreading freedom or democracy. Now that they have bled that country dry, they even found billions dollars worth of lithium in the ground there. Well you contract out to private companies, then they so call pull out, you know mission accomplished.

Some years ago when this mess was going full steam in Iraq, I knew a guy. He was a truck driver, been doing it for years. One of the jobs he talked about which he was thinking of doing was going over there and driving the tankers, you would get a full convoy guarding you and soldiers, but mostly the job paid large sums more money then he would get if he were doing here in the states, definitely more then the soldiers who would be guarding him and his truck. He never took the Job I think because he thought it was to dangerous, you know what if he blows up or something, after all he would be trucking through a warzone even with the might of the US army and sky-domination of the whole area there are still risks.

But anyways, so we set up the whole thing democracy was in full swing there. We armed local yocals and called them the government, we set up local militias and trained them, and some of those we trained if not all fight for Isis now, some were even trained by the CIA and others, and not all in the Iraq war or in the liberation of Libya. Then you contract out private companies to the highest bidder, and off course these private companies need private armed forces. And since there will be a lot of disgruntled soldier left over, you have your "privateers" to stay back while the machine gets to work, so you bring the troops back and call it mission accomplished.

And now that its dying down little left to suction in profits, even that is leaving town. And what you have left are the new Iraqi regime, the great majority of which were just there because it was the thing to do, and because it payed better then farming goats, and because they get to hold a gun and pose in fancy uniforms and take pictures with local mayors who were also set up, and all get to have fancy job tittles and names. Basically its the system we use here, cronyism. Only like here in the states there is nothing to worry about as its literally the gangsters paradise.

Now what do you think would happen when all of the protection is withdrawn? What has happened every single time off course. Some say that the Iraq military we set up are cowards, there not. There just not nowhere ready for what was coming, and while there at home in there home with there new fancy set up and there new fortunes. Groups like Isis are planing and were planing for years on going door to door and eliminating them when they least expected it, usually in the middle of the night, something which US soldier never had to worry about. And while there busy thinking about there public image, they should have been busy thinking about having a bullet in the back of there head on a drowsy night.

So yes there all falling like dominoes, and there is a thread around here about there propaganda video, generally when they release those vids the clean up is pretty much over or on its way. In fact in one part of that vid they had a former colonel which the US machine put in power and his son dig there own graves literally, before they shoot them. In another part you have them going on the streets and handing out fliers, you see people reaching out of there cars while driving to grab them. And you know what there thinking inside there head? There thinking "these guys mean business, i dont want them to show up to my home one night, I think I will just grab this flyer there handing out and be all happy about it" In another part you have events they sponsored in local towns were they let the local townspeople come in to the local mosques and say they repent there sins, and you can beat the townspeople will show up, not only because of the guys standing around with the guns behind them. But its just human nature to go with the flow. And in time they will have there own leaders elected as well if necessary.

So yes it took years and years and many billions of taxpayers money not to mention lives to set all that up and it probably fell months to a few years when we pulled out. Now you got people calming over going back, one vid I watched was of John McCain and his thoughts about pulling out of Iraq. Which is just ignorant, you all should have never been there in the first place, even the Russians who were there were mostly there to keep the more extreme sects from breaking over into there territories and they have been doing it for far longer then the US. But hey were there is a profit there is a way, money and the promise of riches makes people do things.

But really if you want to go back, you would literally have to occupy the whole country, John McCain and others are obviously ignorant on what that would mean or take, you would literally have to move or ship whole groups of people or soldiers and there families to live in those areas and have it completely secured at all times day and night, and even then there is still the change that when little Timmy goes to school he just may step on a landmine. I dont see any of them willing to ship there families there, all I hear is just talk. And if some of there sons are there, there probably only for a time and in a cushy position. I do not think they grasp the full scope of this situation.

posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 11:22 AM
a reply to: Willtell

lol dude it was not even an occupation. When Rome some thousands of years ago conquered Judea and that area that was an occupation, they literally had to ship citizens there to live for life, and even then they had to break up the tribal groups and ship them to other parts of the world to keep the peace, and then they would have to hunt down and crucify all all the little groups, and even then it still would not work, and never did work even back thousands of years ago.

What the US and coalition did was not an occupation, they even failed at occupying a foreign country, and really they dont want an occupation. Really there just there, in a quick grab and go from the beginning, or if there was to be an occupation who are they going to get to occupy those places? Sure as hell there not going to go, and they may have to ship criminals in there to get an occupation.

Even the most ignorant knows what it was about by now. But then again. Probably not. Lets face it. It was all a half assed talking point, some money was made, some profits were made, but its just not profitable to be there anymore for anyone but maybe a few companies and there private security armies, and only as long as the oil keeps flowing and there is money to be made in them hills. So yes it was all a failure from the beginning, it was heading to this, and really there is nothing to little they can do about it. The very idea of going to war for freedom is insanity bordering unsanity. There are very few situations were that oxymoron, that walking contradiction, were which I can think of were that would actually work or be necessary. To say that people did not know the facts or were left out of the loop when they all decided to play savior to a group of people in some dust hole on the other side of the world because some suits on the TV told them so, is an understatement.

posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 11:42 AM

originally posted by: Rycas
a reply to: St Udio

I know that the leader of ISIL is using a pseudonym, and I don't particularly believe he is a direct descendant of Muhammad but he is claiming it and his followers are choosing to believe it. And I think your bang on right about Saudi Arabia. A star for you sir.

thank you...

my post was not to was only meant to inform.... indeed the modern Abu Bakr is a pseudonym and supposedly the man seems to always wear a mask to keep his facial recognizition patterns secret (so he won't be Drone Assassinated no doubt

I think the Saudi intrigue in commanding ISIL to wreak the Iraq leadership & armies...reached the breaking point because the USA failed to bomb Syria as promised/ was caught red handed stealing tonnes of Saudi Gold bullion/ had secret meetings, treaties with the Saudi arch enemy Iran... (as only 3 examples of backstabbing by the USA)
And this was evident in the March 2014 visit to Arabia by Obama that took only 20 minutes for Abdullah to send Obama packing...

sources: 'common sense show', & jim willie 'golden jackass' videos on YT, 'hagmann and hagmann' radio show...

i am hearing a lot & reading a lot that this ISIL is just a USA false-flag, that the Sunni radicals under al-Baghdadi is just a 'Langley' asset...
Bunk, imo
even Iran is telling the world that the USA is lying that there is a joint US-Iran plan to deal with the Jihadi zealot on a Death March to Baghdad

the only logical conclusion is that Saud has kicked the USA to the curb, and the puppet Iraq is on course to be overturned by the fundamentalist Jihadis who duped the USA/CIA/stste department, et al

posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 11:56 AM
For those that are in some US centric bubble of denial and blaming it all on the west, do some research, proper research, probably best avoid patriotic soundbite government ad guy US news if you want any realistic view.

ISIS is a militant group funded by Saudi/ The Gulf, oil fields stolen from Syria, and $400+million stolen from the bank of Mosel last week, previous to that around $8m+ monthly from extortion and taxes.

They are Sunni, a longstanding contender to the Shiite for succession from their prophet Mohammed. They have opposed each other in many wars about it since around the year 632 (about 1144 years before the US was even a notion).

Their views are opposed to the west, they are jihadis, that means they do not like those that aren't muslim.

Specifically they are a particular sort of jihadi as they also oppose other sects of muslim, such as the Shiite.

The Shiite controls a lot of the oil in the Gulf etc.

Oil is power.

The west does oil deals with the Gulf etc.

The west has also done arms deals and has some say in the arming of Iran, including nuclear, there are current talks between the west and Iran. There are considerations about letting Iran help prevent ISIS takeovers, which would no doubt mean allowing them more arms than if there wasn't such a conflict and also more than likely supplying arms.

Prior to ISIS, arming Iran would have been considered unwise, many still think it is unwise.

ISIS and those funding it, such as Gulf oil would no doubt like control of all the oil areas as it gives leverage over the west, politically, economically and in terms of their religious views being forced (which basically means total control over the populations there by removing any trace of human rights they had left) in the areas of control, hence ensuring their point of view as the only point of view being communicated to the west, instead of perhaps more moderate muslim views.

The way of things in such places isn't like the west, there isn't a local politician that you write to, petition, the human rights there are minimal, it is barbaric feudalism the likes of which hasn't been seen in the west for a very very long time. It isn't civilization as we know it. They don't want civilization as we know it, they want control, they want their people totally controlled by them with no say in anything and no human rights, it's called sharia law.

Furthermore, they want their point of view as the only point of view worldwide, that is their religion, that is jihadism.

In the UK they already tried some of their stuff, ''Trojan horse'' madrasa rule in schools, arranged marriages, attempted sharia law.

We say no to it, the west doesn't want and refuses sharia law, the west is against extremism. We have our own civilization that includes human rights, we like it that way.

Their aims are first the Levant then the rest of the world and if getting their aim via politics and oil is the easiest way then that is their aim.

The west arming Iran is perhaps part of their aim, then taking it over with whichever missiles etc it has been allowed.

The middle east situation has been around longer than the US and only views the US and other nations as an obstacle to it's aims of world control.

So take your heads out of the sand, wake up, face the facts and deal with it. Plastic patriotism isn't going to win a war against jihadism.

edit on 18-6-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 12:46 PM
Someone Is Spilling ISIS’s Secrets on Twitter

The terror group may be on a rampage in Iraq. But ISIS is being threatened from inside, it seems. And no one is sure who’s behind the tweets disclosing the group’s intimate details.

A mysterious Twitter account is trying to stop ISIS’s rise to power by spilling the terror group’s secrets online. For more than six months a series of tweets have detailed the alleged covert alliances and conspiratorial machinations behind the ascension of The Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham, the Islamist group taking over large parts of Iraq. Taken together, the tweets form a slanted but valuable picture of ISIS and one of the only portraits of its leaders. Perhaps even more important, the account is still active, sending out tweets days ago about ISIS’s current strategy in Iraq and what it plans to do next.

Sitting over a keyboard somewhere, likely in a Syrian town now held by rebel forces, is @wikibaghdady, the leaker behind the anti-ISIS account. He may be a former ISIS member who defected to ISIS’s rivals in Syria, the al Qaeda-backed Al Nusra front, as some analysts have speculated. Or, “he” may actually be more than one person, with @wikibaghdady serving as the avatar for a group effort to undermine ISIS’s official story and knock it from its perch atop the jihadist movement. Whatever the case, @wikibaghdady has put ISIS in uncomfortable positions, revealing the true name of the group’s leader and a deeply controversial association.

edit on 18/6/14 by masqua because: added link

posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 01:00 PM
a reply to: Willtell

Here it is. Google translates it.

Reddit translations
edit on 18-6-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in