ISIS... The Real Story - Like it or Not

Great thread again! S&F

When American security officials said that they talked about arming ISIL, I want to know who exactly these "officials" are and where they are from. America shouldn't be arming anybody ever. And America has no right to involve innocent people into a civil war in another land. That's why the world is in shambles to begin with.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: DarknStormy

I think this link covers it nicely

now.mmedia.me...

To be honest with you that seems ridiculous... The problem I'm having is that apart form your source there is pretty much nothing else that can verify your source, everything points in the other direction - Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Libya, Jordan, Even Lebanon to a certain degree, Europe, America.. Fighters from Morocco and Tunisia are also amongst the ranks of ISIS also.

With that also, a great number of ISIS fighters are Salafi's..

Salafist jihadism (Arabic: السلفية الجهادية) is a jihadist movement or ideology among Salafi (from salaf, "ancestors") Muslims. The term was coined by scholar Gilles Kepel to describe the beliefs of Salafi who became interested in violent jihad starting in the mid-1990s. Practitioners are often referred to as "Salafi jihadis" or "Salafi jihadists". They are sometimes described as a variety of Salafi, and sometimes as separate from "good Salafis" whose movement is a "precursor" of Salafist jihadism.

The majority of Salafis are from Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia.[4] 22.9% of all Saudis are Salafis (concentrated in Najd).[4] 46.87% of Qataris[4] and 44.8% of Emiratis are Salafis.[4] 5.7% of Bahrainis are Salafis and 2.17% of Kuwaitis are Salafis.

ISIS

In 2013, ISIS emerged as the strongest opposition group in Syria outside Syrian Kurdistan (Rojova). This alarmed the West because the group’s anti-Western rhetoric was matched by a history of having fought against Western forces in Iraq and because of its unwillingness to submit to any outside sponsor, even Al Qaeda. The West encouraged the FSA brigades and those of the Nusra Front and the Islamic Front to unite against ISIS.

Many brigades, however, defected to ISIS, partly because of its success and also in response to perceived Western betrayal. Most of the predominantly Chechen foreign fighters who have gone to Syria, both veteran Jihadis and new recruits (including Westerners), joined Islamist groups and most are now in ISIS.

ISIS also gained a reputation for extreme violence, even by the standards of other participants in the Iraq and Syria conflicts. Partly due to its uncompromising Salafi ideology, it also reflected the brutalising effects of the conflicts. This ultraviolence was visible when ISIS swept back into Iraq in June, releasing videos of the mass execution of prisoners of war.

This invasion also revealed the weakness of the Iraq state. The Maliki regime was at the time trying to hang on to power following elections and as the ISIS forces swept southward they were welcomed by many in Sunni Arab communities alienated by the violent Shia sectarianism of the regime. Meanwhile, in Baghdad, Maliki deployed troops against attempts by rival Shia politicians to dislodge him.

ISIS
Salafist

It would seem ridiculous that Assad would be helping anyone from that ideology. The truth of the matter is that ISIS are made up of International fighters and not just Iraqi's... This has Saudi Arabia written all over it.. I don't think the likes of Hezbollah and Iran would be backing Assad in if they were in bed with their enemies and they would know about it also.

I can't believe people continue to overlook the fact that western leaders were caught red handed staging a chemical attack to blame on Assad. If they would do this, there is nothing they wouldn't so. That means eve young out of their mouths could be a lie.

Why would you defend a liar?

Makes no sense.

AAC

a reply to: daaskapital

That video you posted of Barbara Walters interview of Al Assad was so annoying to watch. Barbara kept trying to make him admit he gave the orders for brutal crackdown to make him look vicious. He kept repeating there was no crackdown. There were some militants starting trouble within a protest and the reacted accordingly. What a side show from Barbara.

I'll tell you what happened, there was a protest, then western backed militants started some nasty stuff to cause chaos, then started shooting protesters, and then blamed it on Assad to justify American intervention there so congress would support financing the coup, which they did.

Sound unreasonable? That's what they did when they were caught red handed staging a chemical attack.

AAC

originally posted by: DarknStormy

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

You need to take things in chronological order.

Assad slaughtered peaceful demonstrators with heavy handed tactics. This started off the comdemnation by other nations and started the Civil war there. The chemical weapons and 3 or 4 letter factions fighting Assad and each other came much later.

Oh yeah, so if the protests were peaceful, who shot dead 7 Police Officers and torched the courthouse? Are you suggesting the Police committed suicide and the courthouse mysteriously ignited itself?

At every western demonstration there is always a couple radicals who start tossing molitov cocktails, the whole crowd doesn't get mowed down and the country put in lockdown. Assad took it out on the masses in the streets, 99% of whom were innocent of violence and just wanted change.

the USA was always a reluctant supporter of Sunni-Jihadists which gravitated to al-Baghdadi & ISIS

reluctant not because the WH is completely adverse to radicals...
but only because ISIS=Caliphate was a extreme-Jihadist group supported by Saudi Arabia (who turned on It's master when IS declared itself a Caliphate)==> Which is in opposition to the WH ideology of a Muslim Brotherhood leadership in the ME & Levant

But the Saudi King had leverage over Øbama on a personal level (for financing his college career and public office introduction, from internet sources I have read)
...the Saudi' also leveraged the USA with the ability to turn-off the 'Petro-Dollar' tap at any moment, So the USA had to support the various Jihadists who eventually gravitated to ISIS as opposed to AQ

The whole deal with IS=Caliphate is they are fiercely against the Saudi Monarchy modernization/westernization....
we are being played by Saudi Arabia into a combat role against the Saudi Replacement government >
AKA: the Caliphate... in the relatively near future


the staged 'moral' indignation about the ISIS Atrocities is not in the WH universe but it is being played-out for the hearts of the Christian community in the USA...the Muslim & Muslim Brotherhood WH does not share in the outrage of ISIS inhumanity on a daily basis...it is only lip service, the only stuff you will hear from Øbama is that ISIS is a Cancer that needs removed, but never will he call them Evil

the WH dragging of feet is not because Øbama likes or favors ISIS...it is because ISIS is going for the Saudi Arabia Juglar Vein and wants to rededicate the Kabbah, Mecca & Medina to Allah without the fingerprints of the infidel Saudi Monarchy
all over those places


ADD, relevant reading/info:
www.huffingtonpost.com...

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Can you provide evidence that they took it our on 99% of the protesters? Because I have already provided evidence that western leaders faked the chemical attack and were caught red handed.

I'll wait.

AAC

the staged 'moral' indignation about the ISIS Atrocities is not in the WH universe but it is being played-out for the hearts of the Christian community in the USA...the Muslim & Muslim Brotherhood WH does not share in the outrage of ISIS inhumanity on a daily basis...it is only lip service, the only stuff you will hear from Øbama is that ISIS is a Cancer that needs removed, but never will he call them Evil

What? He will call them a cancer but not evil? Um... Cancer is the evilest thing imaginable. Please stop the semantics.

AAC

But, Al Zawahiri never intended to start a Caliphate, n

He didn't ?

Goals and umbrella organizations

In a letter to Ayman al-Zawahiri in July 2005, al-Zarqawi outlined a four-stage plan to expand the Iraq War, which included expelling US forces from Iraq, establishing an Islamic authority—a caliphate—spreading the conflict to Iraq's secular neighbors, and engaging in the Arab–Israeli conflict.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation

the staged 'moral' indignation about the ISIS Atrocities is not in the WH universe but it is being played-out for the hearts of the Christian community in the USA...the Muslim & Muslim Brotherhood WH does not share in the outrage of ISIS inhumanity on a daily basis...it is only lip service, the only stuff you will hear from Øbama is that ISIS is a Cancer that needs removed, but never will he call them Evil

What? He will call them a cancer but not evil? Um... Cancer is the evilest thing imaginable. Please stop the semantics.

AAC

semantics is how this Muslim WH hides

now, it is now possible to race bate me...just like the WH does as the deflection point instead of the semantics point...Pfft





in response to this:

But, Al Zawahiri never intended to start a Caliphate, n


He didn't ?

Goals and umbrella organizations

In a letter to Ayman al-Zawahiri in July 2005, al-Zarqawi outlined a four-stage plan to expand the Iraq War, which included expelling US forces from Iraq, establishing an Islamic authority—a caliphate—spreading the conflict to Iraq's secular neighbors, and engaging in the Arab–Israeli conflict.

the real point being that al-Zawahiri never thought that he could establish a Caliphate--- that was the prerogative of a person like Al-Baghdadi that has (supposedly) the credentials to become a Caliph and order a Caliphate into existence

al-Zawahiri was just laying out the 'road-map'


thanks Neo for the clear thinking input in all your post I have not responded to

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Okay, not sponsored then... Enabled. Armed. Empowered. Funded. Whatever.

Here is the 'whatever'.

A WikiLeaks released memo from the United States Secretary of State sent in 2009 asserted that the primary source of funding of Sunni terrorist groups worldwide was Saudi Arabia.[7

en.wikipedia.org...

Saudi Arabia owns AQ,ISIS.

They are a wholly own 'subsidiary' of the House of Saud.

a reply to: neo96

I think what is happening is western leaders are done with the Saudi royal family and are turning on them just like they did Saddam. Did you know, after years of Supreme Court refusal, they are now allowing 9/11 victim families to sue the Royal family in courts?

Heck of a policy shift.

I think we are witnessing a complete reworking of the Middle East by western leaders to offset the push by BRICS and the attack on the dollar. Why? Because is America can lock down the Middle East resources, they can lock in the dollar as trading currency and international reserve currency.

AAC.

a reply to: St Udio

If you really think the White House is pro muslim you're biased and blind to facts.

We are waging a war like never before seen on the muslim culture during this administration.

AAC

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

I don't think the US has the snip to turn on the Saudi's.

They should rightly be on the state sponsors of terrorism right along with Iran, and other arab states.

originally posted by: neo96

But, Al Zawahiri never intended to start a Caliphate, n

He didn't ?

Goals and umbrella organizations

In a letter to Ayman al-Zawahiri in July 2005, al-Zarqawi outlined a four-stage plan to expand the Iraq War, which included expelling US forces from Iraq, establishing an Islamic authority—a caliphate—spreading the conflict to Iraq's secular neighbors, and engaging in the Arab–Israeli conflict.

en.wikipedia.org...

He's never tried to do that himself, neither did OBL. Look:

He urged the "umma", or Muslim nation, to "wage jihad against its enemies, to liberate its land, to restore its sovereignty and to revive its caliphate".

"He urged the umma" he didn't stand up on a soapbox asking to be the Caliph.

www.bbc.com...