ISIS and ATS, just a observation

For the most part on ATS so far I have chowsen to stay out of many of the debates had on the rise of ISIS and what it is that ISIS truly represents. However I do feel a need to get something off my chest so to speak.

I have been closley following ISIS, even since before it became the new "Western backed" boggyman of ATS. Its only really been in the last 4-6 months that most people really started to pay any attention to the horrors unfolding, much like the current conflict brewing in Yenmen, nobody pays much attention untill the bombs start falling. I have seen lots of posts and theads on ATS recently that argue ISIS is somekind of western creation. Now while i do think that its fair to argue that western interventions in the middle east in our post-9/11 world have certainty created the space into which a group like ISIS could flourish however I totally disagree with any notion that ISIS is a western creation that is in reality a puppet whose strings are being pulled by whatever spectre you want to suggest.

One of the big reasons i have stayed out of much of the debates on ISIS so far on ATS because it seams to draw direct parallels with the debates that were had about Al-Qa'ida. The argument then, as is now with ISIS, always seemed to be that Al-Qa'ida was in fact some kind of CIA (or other western) creation. I always felt that this assumption came from both a desire on the part of the conspiracy theorists to twist the truth to fit their warped view of the world were everything is a false flag, but mostly from utter ignorance that is impossible to ever correct with one thread or post. ISIS, much like Al-Qa'ida is really quite complex, you can never explain a phenomenon like radical Islam on a forum like ATS.

I think what this comes down to yet more lazy research, its just so easy to explain away something so horrifically evil and complex as ISIS as some kind of Western puppet because in the minds of some conspiracy theorists they can understand a western pupet and it fits with their world view. But that is not the truth, the truth is that ISIS is something complex and foreign that many westerners just cannot understand in our mostly peaceful and violence free modern society where such horrible violence is so alien to us, for many its easy to just dismiss it with another conspiracy theory rather than taking the time to truly understand what is going on. In short you are not ever going to truly understand ISIS if you take the lazy approach to your research by dismissing it with yet another silly conspiracy in my oppinon.
�

Ever since ISIS showed up, my theory has been that they are a giant, Western-created honeypot scheme in order to attract and gather all the "suicide-cult" Muslims into one place. Carve them out a little piece of land, make pie-in-the-sky promises of a new Muslim caliphate and Sharia-law dominance, and allow them a few victories while gathering up all the small, would-be independent terrorists from around the world into one area.
One day, ISIS will cross some sort of line which will attract the attention of the big military powers (NATO, Israel, etc), they will be easily encircled and eliminated. Within the course of a few weeks, the West will have decimated 90% of the world's Islamic extremists. It's pretty genius really.

I'm not sold 100% either way. I don't think IS is solely a western created entity, nor do I think they're flying totally solo.

That being said, it's an oft stated idea: some people need conspiracies to explain truly horrific things because they just can't accept that other people are abhorrent and vile humans. Some people need a deeper reason for things than "bad people exist and do bad things." That part I can agree with totally.

originally posted by: MrMaybeNot
Ever since ISIS showed up, my theory has been that they are a giant, Western-created honeypot scheme in order to attract and gather all the "suicide-cult" Muslims into one place. Carve them out a little piece of land, make pie-in-the-sky promises of a new Muslim caliphate and Sharia-law dominance, and allow them a few victories while gathering up all the small, would-be independent terrorists from around the world into one area.
One day, ISIS will cross some sort of line which will attract the attention of the big military powers (NATO, Israel, etc), they will be easily encircled and eliminated. Within the course of a few weeks, the West will have decimated 90% of the world's Islamic extremists. It's pretty genius really.

This is my point, you have taken something complex like ISIS and watered it down into a simplistic conspiracy hypothisis that has no real evidance behind it just speculation.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


When thinking about the boogy man groups like The Taliban / Al-Qa'ida / ISIS?ISIL / al-Nusra / or any new or lod name you want to put to it , it seems to always have a CIA connection ,and back door moves within SA . this is a link to a two part history on the elephant in the room and the more I view the happenings over there the more this makes sense . " There is a historical “eight hundred pound gorilla” lurking in the background of almost every serious military and diplomatic incident involving Israel, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Greece, Armenia, the Kurds, the Assyrians, and some other players in the Middle East and southeastern Europe. It is a factor that is generally only whispered about at diplomatic receptions, news conferences, and think tank sessions due to the explosiveness and controversial nature of the subject. And it is the secretiveness attached to the subject that has been the reason for so much misunderstanding about the current breakdown in relations between Israel and Turkey, a growing warming of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and increasing enmity between Saudi Arabia and Iran…" www.strategic-culture.org... pt# 2 .www.strategic-culture.org... The Us is beholden to the powers over there ..they have the money and the western politicians are bought and paid for by them .

So if we can prove that al Qaida was funded by the west would you be more easily swayed to that isis is funded by the west

wasn't the so called father of al Qaida invited to the white house and state department? In the 80's so in the 90s they could begin to create havoc?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

It's a creation by the same team that brought you the wildly successful operation known as 9/11--- US/Saudi/Israeli.

Blaming any one of these entities leads away from the truth. The goals are complex and as per western strategy defaults to absolute chaos and more hardware sales if things don't go as planned.

Mass murder and money printing are the specialties of the US (check the amount of foreign aid going to Qatar). Israel is the master of deception and Saudi is full of Islamic zombies ready to carry out the "wet work" on the ground. Who would believe the Saudis can work in concert with the Israelis? Me for one.

Formidable to say the least. You can attack this model and say I can't prove it. That is true. Keep in mind that the strength of a model comes both from attempts to prove it and from attempts to disprove it. You are welcome to help that process by offering any proof that would break this model.

I tend to think they are real, but were small and ineffectual until some outside source helped them with intelligence and resources.
They graduated to the next level after years of failure in Jordan then Saddam's Iraq and then after the fall of Iraq by eclipsing their previous inadequacies when they reemerged in Syria.

Examining the time period when they invaded, it was the start of the Syrian civil war and there was an equal threat of a Western backed opposition becoming victorious over Assad. Along came ISIL, which at first infiltrated these rebel offensives, then they slowly fractured the Syrian opposition forces against Assad so they never came together as one strong force to oppose him. They consolidated groups with never before displayed bribery powers and organizational skills to become the dominant group which then went off on their own agenda. Whoever was financing them, financed them to disrupt the opposition to Assad and the after effects of making them their own power to rampage the region was of no concern to these benefactors.

This points to an Assad ally. It cannot be Iran because they would not want a Sunni strong army created so the only other Assad ally who didn't want him to fall no matter what is none other than the Russians.

That is my theory based on the evidence and I am sticking to it, for now.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The real name of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is “Simon Elliott.”

The so-called “Elliot” was recruited by the Israeli Mossad and was trained in espionage and psychological warfare against Arab and Islamic societies.

This information was attributed to Edward Snowden and published by newspapers and other Web sites: the head of the “Islamic State” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has cooperated with the U.S. Secret Service, British and Israel to create an organization capable of attracting terrorist extremists from around the world.

Another source corroborates this statement, the site Egy-press:

With photo support, a Iranian media discovers the true identity of the Emir Daash, a trained Zionist agent.

Iranian intelligence discovered the true and full identity of the Emir Daash, which is known under the name Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi; his real name is Elliot Shimon. Its role in Mossad secret agent in the Zionist espionage. His false name: Ibrahim ibn Awad ibn Ibrahim Al Al Badri Arradoui Hoseini.

www.veteranstoday.com...

With this guy at the head of ISIS, makes you wonder the true purpose of it.

Speculation is what we're good at on ATS... Often it will lead to the truth. Maybe I'm wrong maybe I'm right, who knows? Its only a theory, based partly on facts and partly speculation and ATS is a perfect platform for such discussion.

Based on the last few responses I can see that very few are actually going to understand my point. This is to be expected of course ATS is after all a conspiracy forum and members like myself are in the minority. Walking in to a forum where most members believe in various conspiracies and trying to say there isn't one is never going to be popular or met with much agreement. That said however I had to get it off my chest because the level of ignorance being displayed at times is shocking

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
For the most part on ATS so far I have chowsen to stay out of many of the debates had on the rise of ISIS and what it is that ISIS truly represents. However I do feel a need to get something off my chest so to speak.

I have been closley following ISIS, even since before it became the new "Western backed" boggyman of ATS. Its only really been in the last 4-6 months that most people really started to pay any attention to the horrors unfolding, much like the current conflict brewing in Yenmen, nobody pays much attention untill the bombs start falling. I have seen lots of posts and theads on ATS recently that argue ISIS is somekind of western creation. Now while i do think that its fair to argue that western interventions in the middle east in our post-9/11 world have certainty created the space into which a group like ISIS could flourish however I totally disagree with any notion that ISIS is a western creation that is in reality a puppet whose strings are being pulled by whatever spectre you want to suggest.

One of the big reasons i have stayed out of much of the debates on ISIS so far on ATS because it seams to draw direct parallels with the debates that were had about Al-Qa'ida. The argument then, as is now with ISIS, always seemed to be that Al-Qa'ida was in fact some kind of CIA (or other western) creation. I always felt that this assumption came from both a desire on the part of the conspiracy theorists to twist the truth to fit their warped view of the world were everything is a false flag, but mostly from utter ignorance that is impossible to ever correct with one thread or post. ISIS, much like Al-Qa'ida is really quite complex, you can never explain a phenomenon like radical Islam on a forum like ATS.

You could be right, you could be wrong. However you are wrong to look down on disdain at other opinions that may differ, since it is your desire to presume that ISIS arose out of the vacuum of lack of law and order...yet we don't know that either!
Assange has come out and said that pretty much that, but he does note that rebel help was given in Syria. Once you know that, you are back to square one. What's pretty sure is that ISIS is land grabbing in big oil countries, while the West is kind off sitting back and relaxing...funny that after all the turmoil in gaining control of Iraq after 2001, yes it's funny...as in funny peculiar!

They were and continue to be funded by the Saudis, this is an accepted fact. Damn, even the MSM in the U.K admitted this. Saudis are allies of the U.S, the U.S gave financial and military backing to the rebels in Syria, and as a consequence much of the money and weapons fell into ISIS hands.

So, whether it is direct backing or indirect backing, they have come about due to the West's interference in Syria.

I believe we are providing a service to ISIS when we discuss their actions and atrocities. However, the MSM have done a great job in frightening the hell out of everyday folk, by ensuring they led with every atrocity they have undertaken. Showing everyday folk being murdered in several grotesque ways, creates fear and loathing in the psyche of Joe public.

To add to the mystery and complex issues you only have to bring Israel into the picture . How about the other boogyman or are they the good guy's , the Nazi's in Ukraine . Surely Israel /CIA has nothing to do with that . oh waite .. " Israel’s Secret Plan for a «Second Israel» in Ukraine

The Times of Israel, an independent Israeli newspaper that counts among its staff a number of former reporters for the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, published a fascinating but largely overlooked story datelined Jerusalem and Zhitomir, Ukraine, March 16, 2014, and which was written by its respective Russian and Ukrainian correspondents, Hirsh Ostropoler and I. Z. Grosser-Spass, citing a secret report provided to the Israeli government. The report, written by a select panel of scholars of Jewish history drawn from academia and other research centers, concluded that that European Jews are in fact descended from Khazars, a war-like Mongol-Tatar group that ruled over Ukraine and southern Russia, which mass-converted to Judaism in the eighth century AD.

Zionists have long argued that the land claimed by Israel was the biblical birthright of the Jewish people who were forced from the land in a so-called «diaspora» after repeated conquests by various empires. Proof that Ashkenazi Jews, which make up a majority of the Israeli Jewish population, have no historical link to Palestine would call into question the entire premise of Israel as the historical «5,000-year old» homeland of the Jewish people.

The Israeli journalists noted that any conversation of the Khazars and modern Israel has always been met with disdain by Israeli leaders. They quote Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir as once saying, «Khazar, Schmazar. There is no Khazar people. I knew no Khazars. In Kiev. Or Milwaukee. Show me these Khazars of whom you speak». DNA proof that a migratory Khazar population from Europe is now claiming ancient roots in Palestine largely eliminates Zionist claims to the region. " www.strategic-culture.org...

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
They were and continue to be funded by the Saudis, this is an accepted fact. Damn, even the MSM in the U.K admitted this. Saudis are allies of the U.S, the U.S gave financial and military backing to the rebels in Syria, and as a consequence much of the money and weapons fell into ISIS hands.

So, whether it is direct backing or indirect backing, they have come about due to the West's interference in Syria.

I believe we are providing a service to ISIS when we discuss their actions and atrocities. However, the MSM have done a great job in frightening the hell out of everyday folk, by ensuring they led with every atrocity they have undertaken. Showing everyday folk being murdered in several grotesque ways, creates fear and loathing in the psyche of Joe public.

That is the lazy way to make things look the way you want them to.

The West was backing a Syrian opposition at the start of the Syrian civil war, then ISIS came along and destroyed that opposition, totally fracturing it then turning enough over on their side to be the powerhouse in the region.

Look what ISIS did next, they first attacked Iraq when they bulked up. Why would Obama attack Iraq? Obama removed the troops and didn't want any more involvement. ISIS did exactly what the President's foreign policy was not prepared for.
Standard Russian tactics from the cold war.

You do this for us we do this for you, typical Russian offer to a failed ISIL organization that even Al Queda said was washed up. Russia wanted their Navy Port in Syria secured. We all seen what lengths the Russians will go to when it comes to Navy Ports. Crimea got annexed over it.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Greetings- What are Your feelings on this? www.nytimes.com...

How could growing opium become 77% more effective in a "war zone"? When The Taliban was in charge they produced 7% now it is 84%. I wonder if BigPHarma uses any opiates in their over prescribed pain medicines?

So Your contention is that the "foe de jour" (ISIS) is doing ALL of their work sans any outside influences?

I'll take My answer on the air..

Look what ISIS did next, they first attacked Iraq when they bulked up. Why would Obama attack Iraq? Obama removed the troops and didn't want any more involvement. ISIS did exactly what the President's foreign policy was not prepared for.
Standard Russian tactics from the cold war.

This is in reference to Your query: Why would Obama attack Iraq?

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...


prezi.com...

Stargate in Iraq, Opium/dope in Afghanistan, $$$ stolen from the US taxpayer, the same guys make the $$$ going Up/down/sideways..

originally posted by: JimNasium



This is in reference to Your query: Why would Obama attack Iraq?

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...


prezi.com...

Stargate in Iraq, Opium/dope in Afghanistan, $$$ stolen from the US taxpayer, the same guys make the $$$ going Up/down/sideways..

That is the most uneducated simple theory possible (no wonder conspiracy theorists are called names), Obama had Iraq when he was sworn in as President then gave it away? So now you have a theory he gave it all away so he could attack Iraq, which is an attack on his own policy, to get it back.....???

You would have to be near comatose on Opiates to believe that.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
They were and continue to be funded by the Saudis, this is an accepted fact. Damn, even the MSM in the U.K admitted this. Saudis are allies of the U.S, the U.S gave financial and military backing to the rebels in Syria, and as a consequence much of the money and weapons fell into ISIS hands.

So, whether it is direct backing or indirect backing, they have come about due to the West's interference in Syria.

I believe we are providing a service to ISIS when we discuss their actions and atrocities. However, the MSM have done a great job in frightening the hell out of everyday folk, by ensuring they led with every atrocity they have undertaken. Showing everyday folk being murdered in several grotesque ways, creates fear and loathing in the psyche of Joe public.

That is the lazy way to make things look the way you want them to.

The West was backing a Syrian opposition at the start of the Syrian civil war, then ISIS came along and destroyed that opposition, totally fracturing it then turning enough over on their side to be the powerhouse in the region.

Look what ISIS did next, they first attacked Iraq when they bulked up. Why would Obama attack Iraq? Obama removed the troops and didn't want any more involvement. ISIS did exactly what the President's foreign policy was not prepared for.
Standard Russian tactics from the cold war.

You do this for us we do this for you, typical Russian offer to a failed ISIL organization that even Al Queda said was washed up. Russia wanted their Navy Port in Syria secured. We all seen what lengths the Russians will go to when it comes to Navy Ports. Crimea got annexed over it.

That is a convenient way to make things look the way you want them to.

Russia is an ally to the Syrian regime and no matter what you feel Russia are/have been capable of in the past, I think you are barking up the wrong tree going down that avenue.

Russia had a legitimate claim to Crimea, as it was gifted to the Ukraine back in the Cold War days. Sure Russia have an interest militarily in Syria, but they back Assad's regime and have more to lose in that country than any other country in the World, if it falls.

What doesn't surprise me though, is that you would think along those lines. Of course the West wouldn't do such a thing, so it must be the Russians.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
They were and continue to be funded by the Saudis, this is an accepted fact. Damn, even the MSM in the U.K admitted this. Saudis are allies of the U.S, the U.S gave financial and military backing to the rebels in Syria, and as a consequence much of the money and weapons fell into ISIS hands.

So, whether it is direct backing or indirect backing, they have come about due to the West's interference in Syria.

I believe we are providing a service to ISIS when we discuss their actions and atrocities. However, the MSM have done a great job in frightening the hell out of everyday folk, by ensuring they led with every atrocity they have undertaken. Showing everyday folk being murdered in several grotesque ways, creates fear and loathing in the psyche of Joe public.

That is the lazy way to make things look the way you want them to.

The West was backing a Syrian opposition at the start of the Syrian civil war, then ISIS came along and destroyed that opposition, totally fracturing it then turning enough over on their side to be the powerhouse in the region.

Look what ISIS did next, they first attacked Iraq when they bulked up. Why would Obama attack Iraq? Obama removed the troops and didn't want any more involvement. ISIS did exactly what the President's foreign policy was not prepared for.
Standard Russian tactics from the cold war.

You do this for us we do this for you, typical Russian offer to a failed ISIL organization that even Al Queda said was washed up. Russia wanted their Navy Port in Syria secured. We all seen what lengths the Russians will go to when it comes to Navy Ports. Crimea got annexed over it.

That is a convenient way to make things look the way you want them to.

Russia is an ally to the Syrian regime and no matter what you feel Russia are/have been capable of in the past, I think you are barking up the wrong tree going down that avenue.

Russia had a legitimate claim to Crimea, as it was gifted to the Ukraine back in the Cold War days. Sure Russia have an interest militarily in Syria, but they back Assad's regime and have more to lose in that country than any other country in the World, if it falls.

What doesn't surprise me though, is that you would think along those lines. Of course the West wouldn't do such a thing, so it must be the Russians.

You just proved my point.

The Russians had everything to lose if Assad fell, including their navy base.
Isis destroyed the opposition to Assad and made impossible for a cohesive force to oppose him.
Russia won what they wanted by what ISIS has done. As an added bonus a little ME destabilization works towards keeping pressure on higher oil prices too which Russia desperately needs for its economy to survive.

originally posted by: MrMaybeNot
honeypot scheme in order to attract and gather all the "suicide-cult" Muslims into one place. Carve them out a little piece of land, make pie-in-the-sky promises of a new Muslim caliphate and Sharia-law dominance

Yep, and it's called "operation Hornets Nest". ISIS is a magnetic field that attracts bloodthirsty killers and wannabe suicide bombers from around the world. More than two thirds of their recruits are under the age of 34 and a quarter of them under the age of 22, most of them being foreigners.
From an Islamic point of view, ISIS carry all the characteristics of the prophesied modern-day khawarij/takfiris.