Secret Pentagon Report: US "Created" ISIS As A "Tool" To Overthrow Syria's President Assad

a reply to: DJW001

Cherrypickers finest, screw it.

Are you so contemptuous of ATS members that you assume that we won't bother to click on a link?

Too lazy to click on the other two? Thought so.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: DJW001

Cherrypickers finest, screw it.

Are you so contemptuous of ATS members that you assume that we won't bother to click on a link?

Too lazy to click on the other two? Thought so.

No, I'm waiting for you to explain their significance. As I've said, Russia has deployed its own leave behind operation in Ukraine, which I know you support. What does it have to do with the situation in Syria?

look at their westernized,easier to say name "ISIS"
look at their brand new official "terrorist" looking uniforms
how about the Texas Joes plumbing pickup truck ?
how about being busted faking terror w a green screen ?

Seems to me a state sponsor isn't necessary, any billionaire
with interests in the Middle East (which is most of them)
can do this type of thing.
Much like sponsoring a little league team.
There isn't anything about ISIS that leads me to believe
it's grass roots uprising. They look a little too well funded.

a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

look at their westernized,easier to say name "ISIS"

This may have something to do with the fact you are hearing about it through Western media. In Arabic, they call themselves الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎‎. The acronym ISIL is داعش in Arabic, pronounced da-eesh.

look at their brand new official "terrorist" looking uniforms

What about them, exactly?

how about the Texas Joes plumbing pickup truck ?

How about it? Used American trucks are cheaper than new Japanese ones.

how about being busted faking terror w a green screen ?

CIA makes no secret of using the landscape in the background of photos and videos to pinpoint the location they were taken at. If you were a terrorist, would you reveal your location that way?

Seems to me a state sponsor isn't necessary, any billionaire
with interests in the Middle East (which is most of them)
can do this type of thing.

Exactly.

Much like sponsoring a little league team.

Sounds like your local teams play hardball!

There isn't anything about ISIS that leads me to believe
it's grass roots uprising. They look a little too well funded.

As you yourself have pointed out, there is a lot of money in private hands in that part of the world. As for their glossy campaigns, they are attempting to recruit disaffected youth from Western countries. Once the House of Peace has been put in order, these recruits can return to their home countries to wage underground war in the House of War.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Hearing this does not surprise me one bit. How many times has the US allied with some revolutionaries then wound up paying to take them out of power after their corrupt choice of people went astray. I think everybody in the world realizes this happens, but of course Americans live a sheltered life in denial of the obvious.

RIght, it amazes me to no end how many Americans claim to be ignorant of it, or even will demonize you for shedding light on it.

Regardless of the current situation, the pattern is well documented since after WWII, by even mainstream historians.

But then, don't be surprised about Americans, the media totally brainwashes them.

from what I am gleening from various sources...
IS or ISIS also puts a stumbling block in the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah and the rebel Houties fighting in Yemen alliances...

the USA wants Iran to spend equipment/time/ treasure on trying to maintain a smooth linkage between Iran leadership and the proxy fighters in other nations...

the USA/WH Administration is determined to aid & abet the Sunni Jihadists just to make regional hegemony too pricy for Iran to maintain... the USA (with all Its usual swagger and hubris) is 100% certain that IS will be easily wiped out when no longer useful

just wait until Turkey breaks ranks, and impounds all the USA nukes in Turkish storage facilities...
to counter the advancements of Iran (incl. Syria/Iraq/Lebanon/Yemen ~Shia~ ground forces)
and to counter the nuke obtained by the house-of-Saud to defend their Kingdom


it looks darker by the day, that IS or some other M.E. entity will make concentrated attacks on the USA homeland for all the destruction the past 3 USA administrations have caused a half dozen sovereign nations over there in the M.E.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Here's your chance to educate us brainwashed Americans. The CIA has never admitted that it was behind Castro, and it never officially supported the mujahadin in Afghanistan. Are there any more examples you can think of?

a reply to: Zaphod58

One of these is an F-16I belonging to Israel, one is an F-16 Block 60/62 Desert Falcon belonging to the UAE.

So which model of F16 is only exclusive to Israel?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h



Their designation for the newer aircraft is the F-16I, it's based on the F-16 Block 52+, and adds conformal fuel tanks.

a reply to: TheBandit795

And I linked to the actual document.

Ah yes, but did you bother to read what you linked? Apart from the general statement that Western powers (none specifically named) are supporting the 'resistance' in Syria (which has never been a secret), your linked document provides no support whatsoever for the claim you make in your thread title. In fact, it specifically warns against dangers to Iraqi security from the declaration of a Salafist state in Syria by ISI.

No story here, just some internet warriors trying to make a big noise over nothing.

a reply to: Willtell

The document says the US allies in the GULF states supported the Jihadist to oust Assad.

Is this news to you? I thought it had been public knowledge since the crisis in Syria began.

They are clients of the US.

If you think that means they do everything the US tells them to, or that the US approves of everything they do, you are mistaken.

Did the South Vietnamese regime always do what the US wanted them to do? Does Pakistan, or the even the régime in Kabul that would vanish in a hail of bullets and shrapnel if its Western allies were ever to withdraw their support? Do you think the US approves of the bombing campaign the Saudis are carrying out in Yemen right now? Even if they approve its object (which they certainly don't), they know the campaign itself will achieve nothing. But can they stop the Saudis and their Gulf allies from carrying it out without using unfriendly threats of sanctions or force?

Politics is, famously, the art of the possible. Geopolitics is no different.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: TheBandit795

Sorry, but I don't see where the US created ISIS?

There's nothing in that document to suggest it, and zerohedge is full of lies.

All I see is that Al Queda Iraq (AQI) wanted to overthrow Assad, this is no secret, it's been well documented that Al Queda, Al Nusra, the FSA and ISIS have all taken arms against Assad's forces. It's also well documented that ISIS, AQI and Al Nusra have also engaged the FSA on many occasions too.

Saying that the US created ISIS is such a narrow viewpoint to take, it's so much more complicated than that.

Well said. There are so many different groups in the MENA area that it's very complicated. While the US may have funded some rebel groups that dissented a Sunni Islamic Caliphate, that's not to say that DAESH didn't get to them, steal the weapons and money, threaten/kill their families and scare them into cooperating. I have seen this happen many, many times. Groups come up and get merged with others either due to like-minded goals or fear. ISIS (formerly ISI) Have been around for years...I should know. I fought them first hand in Iraq 2009 and 2011. The article takes a vast assumption on a narrow viewpoint.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: TheBandit795

Sorry, but I don't see where the US created ISIS?

There's nothing in that document to suggest it, and zerohedge is full of lies.

All I see is that Al Queda Iraq (AQI) wanted to overthrow Assad, this is no secret, it's been well documented that Al Queda, Al Nusra, the FSA and ISIS have all taken arms against Assad's forces. It's also well documented that ISIS, AQI and Al Nusra have also engaged the FSA on many occasions too.

Saying that the US created ISIS is such a narrow viewpoint to take, it's so much more complicated than that.

Well said. There are so many different groups in the MENA area that it's very complicated. While the US may have funded some rebel groups that dissented a Sunni Islamic Caliphate, that's not to say that DAESH didn't get to them, steal the weapons and money, threaten/kill their families and scare them into cooperating. I have seen this happen many, many times. Groups come up and get merged with others either due to like-minded goals or fear. ISIS (formerly ISI) Have been around for years...I should know. I fought them first hand in Iraq 2009 and 2011. The article takes a vast assumption on a narrow viewpoint.

a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

Little league team yes and their team mascot looks very much like Senator John Mc Cain.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Here's your chance to educate us brainwashed Americans. The CIA has never admitted that it was behind Castro, and it never officially supported the mujahadin in Afghanistan. Are there any more examples you can think of?

The whole point is that the US half of the time DOES NOT officially support said groups or governments, but instead engages in extensive covert ops supporting them. Your position that official support is necessary is a bit off.

I was referring to the US supporting all kinds of revolutionary groups to corrupt ends. This is extremely well documented, especially in Latin America. We supported all kinds of revolutionaries as well as corrupt regimes. Then later we often removed them.

Sometimes to the two go together, and sometimes not. For example, at times the US has supported revolutionaries in order to overthrow legitimate government, later installing puppet governments (Guatemala, Iran). In other circumstances, corrupt governments that were allies of ours (but not installed by us) later became problematic and we had to remove them (Saddam, Noriega, etc).

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Sometimes to the two go together, and sometimes not. For example, at times the US has supported revolutionaries in order to overthrow legitimate government, later installing puppet governments (Guatemala, Iran). In other circumstances, corrupt governments that were allies of ours (but not installed by us) later became problematic and we had to remove them (Saddam, Noriega, etc).

Thank you; I know exactly where you are coming from now. You are an idealist, not a pragmatist.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: TheBandit795

We all know the Saudis are involved in the creation of ISIS so anything Saudi related will involve the US.

No ISIS is trying in a more fundamentalist way to finally establish Sadam's old idea of a unified Syria And Iraq. ISIS is a Baathist Hybrid invention. They don't really care much at all for the monarchs. Iran is threatened because ISIS is a threat to Iranian Hegemony.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

The whole point is that the US half of the time DOES NOT officially support said groups or governments, but instead engages in extensive covert ops supporting them. Your position that official support is necessary is a bit off.

Nah. Planes and supply just tend to drop the 'wrong' way nowadays.

www.ibtimes.co.uk...

www.linkedin.com...

nymag.com...

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Got it! You think the United States government is infinitely more competent than it appears. It's funny, but only people who hate America think that its government is doing a good job!

a reply to: DJW001

Funny that you know what I think.

If incompetence would have been the case somebody had to face consequences by now. But dropping planes are the only consequences I can see so far.