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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

ISIS/ISIL getting to the root of the Conspiracy behind their formation

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 04:12 PM
Just a thought.... Count how many times he says ISIS:

Everyone seems to be treating these names as if they are synonyms. I'm getting kinda uncomfortable with that...

ISIS stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

ISIL stands for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Think there isn't a difference?


The Levant traditionally describes the Eastern Mediterranean at large, but today covers Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestinian Territories and Israel.

I know that the above is a business related site. If you were willing to go with Wikipedia, you would be talking about Cyprus, Hatay, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Turkey...

I'd like to be more trusting, but since the speech I've been curious and digging around on the 'Net to try to get a handle on just what the "Levant" is and I sure hope we aren't in the process of going to war on a much broader scale than we're being led to believe. Some of what I've been reading seems to imply that the countries and territories of the Eastern Mediterranean are generically considered the Levant.

posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 02:50 AM

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: bjarneorn

But my understanding is that most of ISIS is not even Syrian or Iraqi, it's Jihad's from around the globe with smaller local groups folded into the umbrella. And if that were the primary motivating factor, they would be targeting the U.S., not locals.

ISIS is working for the US, not the locals. How better to excuse a war in the middle east, than to have some monsters walking around. Then, you have the absolute excuse ... monsters are roaming around, terrorizing the civilians, you gotta go help the poor civilians.

Take a look at Palestinians/Israelis. The Palestinians have Israelis targetting children, for the purpose of sympathy for their cause. They deliberately choose a school as a hideout, to shoot their missiles.

Today, after Vietnam. You can't just blurt into a war. You need to have an excuse to do so ... which makes a false flag necessary. And today's false flag, are not as simple as Tea party members, dressing up as indians, as they throw the tea into the sea. But look at ISIS. They hide their faces ... just like the SWAT team does. Just like an executioner did in previous history. To put this in perspective for you ... the people don't have to hide their faces. The people rising up in a revolution, will not hide their faces ... this is a training, done by governmental forces, that teaches the person. That he can act, without being known, and then return to live among his peers. So, ISIS are a bunch of peeps ... who are committing a crime, hiding their faces as they intend to revert back to society and live their among the people they attacked. This part is important ... if you are a part of army, that is annexing a state ... you are already among your peers, and don't need to hide your face.

The ideology that ISIS is using, is actually "danish" in extent. During the danish/swedish wars. The swedes were winning, and they almost succeeded in taking Copenhagen. The students at the University in Copenhagen, figured out the idea that by dressing black and committing violent acts. The color of black, and the atrocities would scare the enemy into retreating. It did.

In Iraq, and Syria ... such tactics won't work against an enemy who is flying above you. This enemy doesn't see you, and isn't afraid of you, cause of the distant. So this tactic is not directed at the US ... but directed at the locals.

The US intends to use these monstreous tactics, as an excuse to come in and wage war, to finish the job that ISIS started. When that battle commences, then ISIS will disperse and take of their masks and reappear as noble citizens in western society.

posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 03:14 AM
I tend to think we are the ones being played so far, and I think we all know it. Let's drop the paranoia and look at the facts.

1. Saudia Arabia/Financing- you can't seem to throw a stick in that region without hitting someone on the take from Saudi Arabia or some other oil rich empire, its how the game is played in the M.E. If everyone is on the take then your money trail means almost nothing. IS is also dedicated, and effective, so its only natural the biggest players would get the biggest donations /support. It by no means requires them to be loyal to any agenda but their own..

Side note: Saudi Arabia has been repeatedly threatened as have most mideast states in one way or another.

2. Syria/Rebels - The fact we provided money/weapons is more political theatr$ then intricate conspiracy. In short, if u were a terrorist/group you would lie, cheat, steal and kill to get our training and guns too. This isn't damning evidence, its just common practice by any enemy group in war.

3. IS - It doesn't need to be complex. The Caliph saw a power vacuum in Iraq, chaos in Syria and a chance to seize power. This happens constantly throughout history and furthermore I can make you this guarantee. At least one person on ATS could accomplish the same thing.

edit on 13-9-2014 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 07:10 AM
I guess nobody counted... In his speech the other night he doesn't mention ISIS ONE TIME!!! He says we're going after ISIL.

Maybe it actually does come down to semantics, but I don't understand arming and training someone, letting them overrun Iraq military for more equipment and then bombing them from the air (I'm talking about ISIS not ISIL).

Did Abbott and Costello collaborate on this strategy?

posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:01 AM
a reply to: CornShucker

I noticed as well. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the U.S. the only ones who seem to use the ISIL brand name rather than ISIS? That's always seemed strange to me as ISIS was the name first used by the media. It's almost if the U.S. is trying to distinguish between them like they are different groups. Just seems very odd the way they have really stuck with ISIL being the official name.

posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:17 AM

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: CornShucker

I noticed as well. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the U.S. the only ones who seem to use the ISIL brand name rather than ISIS? That's always seemed strange to me as ISIS was the name first used by the media. It's almost if the U.S. is trying to distinguish between them like they are different groups. Just seems very odd the way they have really stuck with ISIL being the official name.

I provided a possible take on this in another thread. You can read it Here.

posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:43 AM

originally posted by: the owlbear
a reply to: pavil

Who is to say they aren't?
They just haven't been given the go signal.

Here's where I start to wonder about ISIS/IS/ISIL...

If they really wanted to hit "The Evil West", they would do everything in their power to fly under the radar while carrying out covert attacks against Western targets. They are doing the exact opposite.

They rode into Iraq waving flags and indiscriminately murdering everyone they wanted. It's like they're taunting the rest of the world and ASKING for an open conflict. They're basically saying "here we are, come and get us!" That's not how you maintain posterity and accomplish your goals. It makes them look even more like a CIA-funded justification for war.

posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 01:43 PM
a reply to: Answer

Actually the opposite is true. We have become some numb to it that they figure they can do whatever they want because we will spend months/years arguing about how to get involved. As long as they don't touch us we won't get too invested beyond the usual "basic aid" bull#.

If the CIA wanted us at war there, hundreds/thousands of Americans would already be dead

Our token involvement so far has more to do with the mid term elections the anything, neither side wants to be seen as soft on the issue.
edit on 13-9-2014 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 01:50 AM

originally posted by: Painterz
BBC ran a story a few weeks ago talking about the money trail, and their conclusion was that it was Saudi money. Saudi support.

Hmmm the bbc said that huh.... Then it defo isn't the sauidi's... The BBC is a huge propaganda machine/paedophile ring/mafia... Why on earth would you raise them as a source let alone watch their utter tripe!

*shakes heads....

posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 10:51 AM
a reply to: pavil

posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 12:16 PM

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: Painterz
BBC ran a story a few weeks ago talking about the money trail, and their conclusion was that it was Saudi money. Saudi support.

Hmmm the bbc said that huh.... Then it defo isn't the sauidi's... The BBC is a huge propaganda machine/paedophile ring/mafia... Why on earth would you raise them as a source let alone watch their utter tripe!

*shakes heads....

Sounds like a planted reverse psy-ops story.

Place a "true" story into an "untrusted" source and make people think it's not true.

Obama has been successful at that trick with the birth certificate questions.

edit on Sep-14-2014 by xuenchen because:

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 08:44 AM
Are there any "moderate" Syrian rebels? I just read the Obama Administration is still pushing Congress to fund rebels in Syria. It looks to be Libya all over again, we will back ABA anyone but Assad, even if they aren't a viable alternative as a replacement Govt. There seem to be no good people to support in Syria.

posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 08:51 AM
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

They sell their oil in Turkey. The same infrastructure that sold Iraq's oil illegally during Saddam Hussein.

posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 08:36 AM
a reply to: pavil

Good discussion, Pavil! You started this before I joined ATS, but I can explain what happened with the "Benghazi arms deal gone horribly wrong Conspiracy". Simply put, Hillary GAVE Libya Stinger missiles early on, so she could "catch Ghaddafi on the cheap." By the beginning of 2012, Ghaddafi was gone - and Hillary had to find all those loose Stingers, to tidy up her image for a 2016 Presidential run.

So she set up the Benghazi Consulate with a newbie Ambassador, and deliberately under-protected it to keep the whole project under-the-radar. By the Fall of 2012, however, most of the Stingers were in or headed to Syria thru Turkey. Here are some article links to explain this:
(Sept. 2011) "The White House announced today it planned to expand a program to secure and destroy Libya's huge stockpile of dangerous surface-to-air missiles, following an ABC News report that large numbers of them continue to be stolen from UNGUARDED military warehouses."
"Public reports corroborate some, but not all, of a stunning accusation about Benghazi."

Page 3: "There is significant reason to believe that both Stevens and the CIA personnel in Benghazi were focused on recovering the missiles in the days leading up to his death on September 11."

Page 4: "About a week later, Russia's top military officer, accused the United States of providing American-made Stinger missiles to the SYRIAN REBELS, a charge the Pentagon and State Department denied. The American government may not have directed the smuggling of weapons from Libya to Syria through Turkey - but there is evidence to suggest they were aware of it."
edit on 1-10-2014 by MKMoniker because: add material

posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 09:18 AM
a reply to: pavil

Here is a history and documentation of the U.S. involvement in training Syrian Rebels.
"A covert program to train rebel fighters, which State Department officials here were not prepared to discuss, has also been under way. According to an official in Washington, who asked not to be identified, the CIA since last year has been training groups of Syrian rebels in Jordan. The official did not provide details about the training or what difference it may have made on the battlefield, but said the CIA had not given weapons or ammunition to the rebels. An agency spokesman declined to comment."
"... has decided to begin supplying the rebels for the first time ..."

(NOTE: Bilderberg Elitists had held their annual meeting that month. Every attendee is forbidden to ever repeat what is discussed. BUT they've had a drumbeat toward a "war with Syria" for several years now. And by August 2013, Mr. (married-an-heiress and is now an Elitist) John Kerry was picking up the drumbeat to get us into a Syrian War.)

(NOTE: This "first time we've sent arms to the Syrian rebels" is a big fat lie. Hillary's misadventures arming Libyan Al-qaeda with Stinger Missiles, eventually found the remnants (the dead Ambassador couldn't buy-back) finding their way thru Turkey to Syria. DHS' Napolitano also visited Turkey at least once in 2012.)

This post and links may disappear. I suggest you do a screen-shot to at least keep the links.

posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 09:37 AM
The big questions for ISIL and American involvement, is whether we trained them. AND if American Spec Ops (whether under Pentagon or CIA supervision) are still embedded in the ISIL.

The PrisonPlanet article from March 2012 I posted above, referencing Wikileaks stolen/released e-mails for Intel contractor "Stratfor", clearly stated that:
"A former director of Blackwater, the US mercenary contractor organization (now Academi, and mostly made up of current or former Spec Ops), was sent by the US government to fight alongside rebels in Libya, and was even involved in the killing of Muammar Gaddafi. In addition, a US government committee has now overseen the mercenary’s assignment to Syria where he is tasked with protecting rebel fighters and finding ways to “help in regime change.”

SO ... this shows that the U.S. has in the recent past, successfully "embedded" CIA Contractors in Libya's rebel army. And this Contractor was then sent to "protect rebel fighters" in Syria, and help achieve Syrian "regime change."

Now the question is, are CIA Contractors and/or current U.S. military Spec Ops "embedded" in the ISIL? And if so, are we "pulling our punches" by picking bombing targets that won't kill our embedded Spec Ops in the ISIL?

Then why are we sending military Spec Ops to battle the ISIL? Or are the CIA Contractors embedded in the ISIL now considered "Spec Ops gone rogue"?
"The US Marine Corps plans to deploy 2,300 troops to the Middle East for a new unit designed to quickly respond to crises in the volatile region, the Pentagon said Tuesday. It will include several aircraft and be prepared to move rapidly in the case of "contingencies," Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby told reporters.

"The idea for the task force originated in 2013 -- before the current US air campaign against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria -- and was not related "to the ongoing operations in Iraq," Kirby said.

(NOTE: Uh-oh! Are we sending Marines to fight - or join the ISIL???)

edit on 1-10-2014 by MKMoniker because: add material and clarification

posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 09:53 AM
Almost everyone in the world knows that the western elites are the cause of a lot of atrocities done to the human race,including the creation of some terrorist groups like Al ciada,Talbotan ,USIS,and their latest child now conveniently called "Khorasan" The problem is nobody seems to have reacted to that very obvious fact so far and we all look like we enjoy having a part in a big orchestrated Hollywood production instead...Yeyyy! lets just join the elites to demolish their own creation for them while screwing our economy even further down if that's possible...Yeah,,Turkey and the Saudis are actually spending money fighting what they spent a lot of money to help to create to start with!

posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 10:47 AM
a reply to: shapur

"The battlefield is a scene of constant chaos. The winner will be the one who controls that chaos, both his own and the enemy's." Napoleon Bonaparte

Considering how the Global Elitists all consider themselves "petty tyrants," I thought that quote was rather apt.

edit on 1-10-2014 by MKMoniker because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 07:40 AM
"ISIL now controls about half of Iraq, potentially giving it access to some low-level radioactive and radiological materials, according to a State Department official.

"“The signing and donation of radiation detection equipment reflect the common conviction of the U.S. and Iraqi governments that nuclear smuggling and nuclear and radiological terrorism are critical and ongoing global threats that require a coordinated, global response,” the State Department said in a statement. “Iraq’s central location and the challenging security environment it faces reinforce the urgency with which these problems must be addressed.

”Iraqi officials revealed to the United Nations in July that insurgents had seized uranium that was being used for research purposes at an academic institution in the northern part of the country. Nearly 90 pounds of low-level uranium was stolen from Iraq’s Mosul University by “terrorist groups,” Iraq’s U.N. ambassador was quoted as saying at the time by Reuters.

"However, the United States is not overly concerned about the loss of these nuclear materials because it is mostly depleted or naturally occurring. There is currently no enriched uranium “that we know of” in Iraq, according to the State Department official."

(NOTE: Curious that all this is coming out of the State Department - not the Pentagon.

(Is all this setting up an excuse for another "stolen nuke" to be detonated on the U.S. coastline, with accompanying EMP wave? And blamed on "infiltrated terrorists with nuclear weapons"? Team Obama is good at this, setting up their devious plans months in advance with carefully worded media news releases.)

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 07:56 AM
It's generally accepted now that the U.S. trained at least part of what has emerged as the ISIL. Now the focus seems to be on who armed them. And, as usual with the ISIL in the western media, opinions differ:
“ISIL has used both U.S. weapons captured in Iraq, but mostly material supplied from the former East Bloc that was ordered more than a year ago,” a diplomat said, according to a report by Middle East Newsline.

"On Aug. 12, a diplomatic source said the flow of ISIL weapons was aided by NATO, particularly Turkey. The source said NATO intelligence services were facilitating payment and arms shipments to and from Europe under the guise of humanitarian supplies to Syria.

"The source told Russia’s state-owned RIA-Novosti news agency that ISIL began ordering weapons and military equipment in early 2013. The unidentified source said Croatia was supplying armored personnel carriers and rocket launchers while Romania was selling main battle tanks and Ukraine infantry fighting vehicles. He said Bulgaria was supplying munitions.

“The supplies were conducted starting in 2013, by firms that were created specifically for one or two deals,” RIA said. “The contracts for the deals had other countries and companies indicated as the final destination for the supplies.”

(NOTE: The ISIL is beginning to look like a globally-supported Spec Ops Rebel group. So what is their ultimate goal? Take over Syria and Iraq - secretly aided/abetted by the U.S. and Russia? Then the ISIL just collapses or disappears at the right moment. And the U.S. and Russia suddenly control Syria and that all important "proposed" pipeline for the Elitists?

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in