Fear of a Caliphate

ISIS Wins Again

Now that Barack Obama the dove has metamorphized into Barack Obama the hawk, the President and his people are more than usually in over their heads.

It isn’t just that their past and present enemies in Iraq and Syria – Iran and the Assad government – are now also their de facto allies; or that those “Syrian moderates,” who haven’t exactly panned out in past iterations of American meddling, are now, again, their great Islamic hope.

They are so confused by the situation they helped bring about that, at first, they couldn’t even decide what to call their enemy.  Nor could they figure out whether to call this latest phase of the Bush-Obama perpetual Middle Eastern war a “war” or something that public opinion might find more congenial.

They were inclined, at first, to follow the example of their fascism-friendly Ukrainian protégés, by calling it an “anti-terror operation” – supplemented by some adjective like “heightened” that would imply that it would be more or less permanent.   In the end, they settled on “war.”

From Obama’s point of view, it is emphatically not a war of choice; not his choice, anyway.

Candidate Obama famously used that expression to disparage George Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq.  He still takes credit for winding Bush’s ruinous adventure down, even as he is starting it up again.

His point was that the Iraq War was Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s choice in the sense that they had no compelling reason to start it.

To be sure, they had grandiose, and patently unrealistic, geopolitical objectives in mind, but basically they, and the neocons they empowered, just wanted to overthrow the Iraqi government and to take that country over.  And so, there it was; and still is.

Obama, on the other hand, didn’t want this war.  The man is a god-awful President, but he isn’t stupid.

However, with an election in the offing, and with Republicans, right-wing Democrats, and the usual gaggle of pundits calling for blood — along with Hillary Clinton – he had no choice.

Resisting the pressure would take courage.  That is therefore out of the question.

Obama had no choice, but then neither did the warmongers and their acquiescent colleagues in the Senate and the House.  They too were reacting, predictably, to events not of their making.

The Islamic State (IS), or whatever we call it, chose to bring this war on – or, rather, to bring the United States back into a war that it started, lost many times over, and still never really quit.

Obama and his crew don’t want to call the IS by the name it now uses.   They favor the names it used to go by after it broke away from Al Qaida – ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) or ISIL (the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant).

They are said to think that if the old names prevail, it will diminish IS’s global reach, reducing it to a regional power.  Seriously.

Could this be what Obama’s publicists mean by a “strategy”?  Perhaps; nothing amazes anymore.

In any case, on the principle that even “bad guys” get to be called what they want, I propose we stick with IS.  If this gets Obama’s goat, then so much the better.

Why would the IS choose to have America rain murder and destruction down upon it, and upon the people it purports to fight for?

Maybe because something like that worked out well for Al Qaida, and because Osama Bin Laden is their spiritual guide.

On 9/11, Al Qaida caused some three thousand people to die in New York, Washington and Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

But the harm it did on that day was almost trivial compared to the harm America went on to do to itself.   The reaction to 9/11 changed the country for the worse – in countless ways.  The process continues to this day, some thirteen years on.

To inflict so much harm, Al Qaida had to stage a spectacular assault on some of the citadels of American imperialism.

All the IS had to do was behead two American journalists — and, later, one British aid worker.   As best we know, they didn’t even have to capture their victims; others turned them over to the IS – either because the IS forced them or because the original captors realized that the chances of collecting ransoms were dim.

It was a stroke of genius.  At almost no cost, the IS got the fear factor in the West back up to dizzying heights.

Fear had gone dormant in recent years; war-weariness had taken over.  The military-industrial-national security state complex in America and elsewhere could hardly stand for that.

But it might have had to, had the IS not come to the rescue.  With just a few strokes of the sword, happy days are here again – for our “warriors” and the death merchants who arm them on the taxpayer’s dime, and forjihadis eager to get America and its vassals whole-heartedly back into the fray.

If there were a Nobel Prize for military strategy – specifically, for how weak non-state actors can prevail in “asymmetrical” wars against mighty juggernauts — it should go to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the IS’s leader (or, at least, its public face).

He is certainly more deserving of a prize than the Nobel Peace laureate who now leads – or is the public face of – the forces fighting the IS.

Al-Baghdadi must have a keen grasp of the thoroughgoing befuddlement of America’s political class and its media flacks; he certainly knows what buttons to push.

There was no way he, or anyone else, could make it “rational” for America to recommit all the troops and resources it soon will.  But where rationality fails, there is always irrationality.  As a true believer, Al-Baghdadi is no stranger to that; as they say, “it takes one to know one.”

The man is zealous, benighted, and vile, but he knows what he is doing.

He is also quite the ironist.

Saudi Arabia, America’s favorite country in the Middle East – except, of course, for Israel — is the beheading capital of the world.  And, according to The New York Times, in a story other corporate media squelched, the “moderate” Free Syrian Army, the announced beneficiary of Obama’s largesse, recently undertook some beheadings of its own.

It is far from obvious too that, as an occupying force, the behavior of the IS, horrendous as it is, is any more odious than the IDF’s, the Israel Defense Forces’.  Israeli propagandists and American pundits call the IDF “the most moral army in the world.”  Only ardent Zionists believe them; the rest of the world knows better.

Unlike many Western leaders, the IS didn’t get where it is by being ignorant and dumb.  Coming out of nowhere, the IS now rules large swathes of Syria and Iraq — because its leaders figured out how to leverage their otherwise feeble power.

Its military prowess is, no doubt, considerable, but it has prevailed mainly thanks to uprisings in aggrieved Sunni communities.

By all accounts, the IS is not well loved in the territories it has conquered – quite the contrary, it is feared and despised.   But it knows how to mobilize popular discontent, and how to take advantage of it.

It is not just in the West that IS fanatics are regarded as barbarians at the gate.  Everyone loathes them; reportedly, even Al Qaida.

Unfortunately, though, for many hard-pressed Sunnis in Syria and Iraq, they are the only game in town.  And so, for the time being, they support them.  Have they entered into a Faustian bargain they will come to regret?  Time will tell.

The IS says that it wants to establish a caliphate.  No doubt, its leaders really do.

But the important thing is that it makes sense for them to say that establishing a caliphate is their objective.  This is yet another way for them to affect Western public opinion to their advantage.

“Caliphate” has become the favorite scare word of modern day Islamophobes.  Thanks to their influence, the mere use of the word can be almost as upsetting to ill-informed Westerners as videos of beheadings.

How bizarre – to be OK with Obama’s drones and Netanyahu’s massacres, but mention “caliphate,” an antiquated notion of mainly theological significance for the past thousand years, and up go the hackles!

That would be the hackles of people who haven’t the slightest idea what a caliphate is.

The time to define terms and go back to basics is evidently long past due.

  • *

Nowadays, the word “state” is sometimes used loosely to designate any of the many political structures that govern independent political entities.

However, in most contexts, including this one, it is best to use the term more restrictively – to refer to political regimes in which supreme authority is concentrated into a single institutional nexus.

When the great German social theorist Max Weber declared that states exercise a monopoly over the means of legitimate – that is, considered to be legitimate – violence, he was referring to states in this more restricted sense.

The state form of political organization is therefore the exception, not the rule. Throughout history, political authority relations have been diffuse.  Feudal societies didn’t have states (except in the looser sense of the term), and neither did more ancient social formations.

Indeed, with only a few minor exceptions (or, rather, anticipations), the state is a creature of the modern era.

States came into being in tandem with and largely because of the rise of capitalism.  This was not a coincidence; the state, specifically, the nation state, was, at the time of its emergence, a functional requirement of capitalist development.

Capitalist economies join together vast numbers of people who live apart and who are strangers to one another.  They do not, and cannot possibly, trust one another well enough to interact through exchange relations — unless they are brought together under the aegis of a common political and legal framework.

States also facilitate interactions between the discrete economic units they help to construct – mainly, but not only, through trade.   The role of trade in the rise of capitalism and in the politics of the era in which the state form of political organization took hold can hardly be exaggerated.

Emerging capitalism needed states.  But states will not function well if they are experienced as arbitrary concoctions.  To flourish, they must arise, or seem to arise, out of the natural order of things – like the integral communities of earlier periods, but on a far larger scale.

To best discharge their mission, they therefore need to become nation states.

The nation too is a modern development.

It is now widely understood that nations are “imagined communities” – socially constructed, more or less deliberately, to take the place of the solidarities that capitalism disrupts.

Since nations didn’t exit, it was necessary to invent them.

In early modern Europe and, later, nearly everywhere else, the raw materials for doing so were readily at hand.

Physical contiguity was important; for constructing a sense of nationality, it helps if the lands in which potential members of the same nation live comprise an integral geographical whole.  In the collective consciousness of a nation, co-nationals inhabit the same space.

It was important too that co-nationals shared, or thought they shared, a common history; and that they exhibit identifiable cultural affinities.

It also helps if the dialects they speak are mutually intelligible.  Then one or another dialect can more easily become the basis for a nation’s official language.  Constructing a national language is an important task in nation building.

These are not necessary or sufficient conditions.  But the general pattern is robust.

Typically too, members of the same nation share, or once shared, common religious beliefs and practices.

This was very nearly all that members of the Jewish nation, as nineteenth century Jewish nationalists conceived it, had in common — though efforts were made, and are still made, to support claims of common descent.  Simply sharing a religion was evidently not enough.

The reason why is not entirely clear – especially inasmuch as some religious sects meet the criteria for nationhood better than most bona fide national groups do.

The Amish are a case in point: they lived on contiguous territories, first in Europe, then in North America (until population growth and land scarcity necessitated a kind of “diaspora”); they speak a common language, the middle-German dialect called Pennsylvania Dutch; and they share a common history and culture.

But no one, the Amish least of all, would speak of an Amish nation.  Among religions, the Jewish case is an anomaly; and but for the rise of Zionism – a political movement that assumes Jewish nationhood – the idea, born in the age of German Romanticism, might well have disappeared long ago.

If it had, the Jewish people today would be what they have been for the past two thousand years: co-religionists.

In the nineteenth century, as European imperialists brought the Islamic world into the capitalist fold, Western notions of political organization took root in historically Muslim areas as well.

But because Islamic theology has a pronounced theocratic strain, and because, within its framework, a Muslim’s first loyalty is to the entire community of the Muslim faithful, the ummah, nationalist ideas had a hard time becoming established in Muslim lands.

However, as the Muslim world modernized – and secularized – nationalism eventually took root there too.

By that time, though, most Muslims were living in areas that were either incorporated into the Ottoman Empire or ruled by British, French, Dutch or Russian imperial powers.

By that time too, there were more nations in the Middle East (and other dominated parts of the world) than were ever likely to have their own states.   This has been a problem ever since.

When the British and the French divvied up the Ottoman Empire after World War I, the administrative units they concocted were drawn up with little regard for the national or proto-national aspirations of the subject peoples involved.

They were too “orientalist” to care what the natives wanted, and too shortsighted to take any but their own interests into account.  The consequences of their thoughtless maneuverings are only now falling due.

Also, by that time, nationalism had largely outgrown its original function.  It no longer had much to do with helping capitalist economies flourish.

In the Muslim world, as in other regions of the global South, nationalistic aspirations had more to do with motivating and sustaining resistance to imperial domination.

Often, nationalism became indistinguishable from patriotism, a virtue extolled by political thinkers since even before the dawn of the capitalist era.

In all this time, however, there was never much interest in Muslim quarters in implementing theologically driven notions of a unitary, theocratic political order that would govern the entire Muslim world through the antiquated institutional forms of the seventh and eighth centuries.

Uniting the whole world, or even just the historically Muslim part of it, under the sway of a caliphate was a religious, not a political, ideal — in much the way that, before Zionism, returning to the Promised Land was for Jews.

The caliphates that existed in Islam’s first centuries – before the religion we know today fully coalesced – were not even all that scary.

From the beginning, Muslims were obligated to protect Christians and Jews, even as they accorded them a subaltern status.  Though not religiously required, the spirit of tolerance often spilled over to practitioners of other ancient faiths as well.

Those that had scriptures generally fared better than outright pagans; as did those that could claim to be monotheistic.  Monotheism was not a very demanding requirement in any case, inasmuch as, on that criterion, (trinitarian) Christianity had already set the bar low.

Some of those barely tolerated religious groups survive to this day.  Lately, the Yazidis have been in the news – because Obama claims to have saved some thirty thousand of them from the IS.  In truth, there were far fewer in need of saving than was at first reported, and most of the saving was done by Kurds and Turks.

Other ancient strains of Mesopotamian religiosity melded, often uneasily, into Islam.  Typically, adherents of these faiths retained some of their beliefs and practices, and suffered persecution on that account.  The Alawites in Syria are an example; the Assad family, in power there since 1970 (no thanks, lately, to the United States), is of Alawite origin.

In any case, by the time Islam coalesced into the religion it has become, with distinct Sunni and Shia branches, the idea that the entire community of the faithful should – or even could — be drawn together into a single political entity had become patently unrealistic.

The idea survived as a theological construct, but it had no political meaning.   Caliphates were sometimes still declared.  There was even a caliph in Istanbul at the time that the Ottoman Empire expired.  But, from a political point of view, the office was, for all practical purposes, inert.

Now that the whole word is divided into states, the idea is more unrealistic than ever.

The post-World War I division of the Ottoman Empire’s Mesopotamian provinces into British and French protectorates, and later into states, could now be in jeopardy thanks to the IS.  Parts of Syria and Iraq could splinter apart, and Sunni areas in both countries could merge.

But the chances that the world, or any significant part of it, will soon be taken over by fanatical Muslims intent on imposing sharia (Islamic religious) law – another Islamophobic scare word — is nil.

The prospect that, under the IS’s leadership, the state form of political organization in territories it controls would give way to institutional arrangements that died out more than a thousand years ago is, if anything, even less likely.

These notions are nightmare fantasies, promoted by Israeli propagandists and other fear mongers who prey upon Islamophobically-inclined Westerners.

If a later day caliphate is what IS militants think they want, then they too are living in a fantasy world.

The confusion is evident in the name itself.  A caliphate is not a state, not even an Islamic state, unless “state” is used only in the loosest of senses.

Were the IS to hack out parts of Syria and Iraq in order to establish a new state there, it would be a Sunni state – but only in the sense that it would rule over majority Sunni populations.

No doubt, such a state would enforce religious law, much as the Iranian state does.  It would be a grotesquely brutal and illiberal state.   But, no matter what the IS would call it, it would be a state nevertheless, not a caliphate in anything like the original meaning of the term.

The caliphates of Muslim antiquity operated in a very different world from the present; their institutional arrangements reflected conditions that no longer exist.

This is something even the IS cannot change.  A true caliphate could hardly operate, much less endure, in today’s world.

Does the IS realize this?   It is hard to say on the available evidence.  The evidence only supports what we know as a general rule: that clear thinking and godliness, fanatical godliness especially, don’t mix.

Even more surely, it supports the idea that the IS wants the US again to put “boots on the ground.”  The more in America is, the happier they will be.

The happier many of our Senators and Representatives will be too.   Great minds think alike.

Talk of caliphates serves the IS’s purpose, much as beheadings on You Tube do.  And talk is cheap, and become cheaper.  Since 9/11, the cost of getting America to do itself in has plummeted.

And so, the IS, wins: Obama’s America is off to war again.

Worry about that; not about what the IS says it wants to establish in the region or the world.

The potential for harm resulting from the United States and other Western powers fighting against the IS is greater by many orders of magnitude than any harm that the IS can do in the areas it controls.

And the only way it can harm the United States or other Western countries is the tried and true way: by getting them to harm themselves.

ANDREW LEVINE is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What’s Wrong With the Opium of the People. He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park.  He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).


Congress Votes To Fight ISIS By Funding ISIS To Fight Assad


Image source

Brandon Turbeville 
Activist Post

On September 17, 2014, the United States House of Representatives voted to approve the White House plan to arm and train the alleged “moderate” Syrian rebels. The vote was 273-156 in favor of the $500 million plan. Of course, the bill in question was actually an amendment that was cynically attached to a bill designed to continue funding for the federal government in the short-term, ensuring maximum support from members of the House.

Then, on Thursday September 19, the U.S. Senate followed suit by approving the plan as well. The support for the plan in the Senate was, as expected, bipartisan with members such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John McCain, John Boehner, and Lindsey Graham voting “Yes” on the bill.

The Obama administration reiterated that it was neither asking for permission nor for a new authorization to use military force. The White House asserts that it has all the authority it needs to achieve its goals under the authorizations to use military force that were approved after the 9/11 attacks and in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Essentially, as Obama stated in his address to the American people on September 10, the consultation of Congress was a mere formality. The plan to aid the “moderate rebels” fighting against Assad and engage in airstrikes against the secular government was going ahead regardless of the decision by Congress.

Much like the decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq as well as passing the PATRIOT ACT, and other Constitution-shredding legislation, Congress was convinced to support the plan both because their handlers directed them to do so or because the risk of revealing themselves as completely irrelevant was too damaging to undertake.

Yet, while the amendment was sold to the American people and even members of Congress as Obama’s plan to “detect and degrade” ISIS, the reality is that the plan is nothing more than a plan to detect and destroy the Syrian government to benefit of ISIS and other fundamentalist groups that the United States has created, funded, trained, and directed since the very beginning of the Syrian crisis.

Even Congressman Justin Amash was able to recognize the fact that this new amendment was a clever disguise for a war on the secular government of Syria with no options off the table, including the use of ground troops.

In his own statement announcing his opposition to the amendment, Amash stated,

Today’s amendment ostensibly is aimed at destroying ISIS—yet you’d hardly know it from reading the amendment’s text. The world has witnessed with horror the evil of ISIS: the public beheading of innocents, the killing of Christians, Muslims, and others.

The amendment’s focus—arming groups fighting the Assad government in Syria—has little to do with defeating ISIS. The mission that the amendment advances plainly isn’t the defeat of ISIS; it’s the defeat of Assad.


The Obama administration has tried to rally support for U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war by implying that our help would be at arm’s length. The amendment Congress will vote on broadly authorizes “assistance” to groups in Syria. It does not specify what types of weapons our government will give the groups. It does not prohibit boots on the ground. (The amendment is silent on the president’s power to order our troops to fight in the civil war; it states only that Congress doesn’t provide “specific statutory authorization” for such escalation.) It does not state the financial cost of the war.


If the Syrian groups that are “appropriately vetted” (the amendment’s language) succeed and oust Assad, what would result? Would the groups assemble a coalition government of anti-Assad fighters, and would that coalition include ISIS? What would happen to the Alawites and Christians who stood with Assad? To what extent would the U.S. government be obligated to occupy Syria to rebuild the government? If each of the groups went its own way, would Syria’s territory be broken apart, and if so, would ISIS control one of the resulting countries?

While Amash was correct to suggest that Congress should have opposed the amendment and that the amendment was actually a plan for an assault against the Syrian government as well as the fact that that anarchy, chaos, and unspeakable violence will reign supreme in Syria if the “appropriately vetted” groups managed to gain control of the country, Amash does miss part of the point.

The truth is not that “we don’t know much about the groups we are funding in Syria.” The truth is that “we” know full well that they are ISIS/Al-Qaeda terrorists, with only an occasional name change and branch off due to Western political motives or internal squabbling. That has been and still is the whole point.

There never were any moderates to support in Syria to begin with.

There Are No Moderate Syrian Rebels

As Tony Cartalucci wrote in his article, “In Syria, There Are No Moderates,”

. . . . . there were never, nor are there any “moderates” operating in Syria. The West has intentionally armed and funded Al Qaeda and other sectarian extremists since as early as 2007 in preparation for an engineered sectarian bloodbath serving US-Saudi-Israeli interests. This latest bid to portray the terrorists operating along and within Syria’s borders as “divided” along extremists/moderate lines is a ploy to justify the continued flow of Western cash and arms into Syria to perpetuate the conflict, as well as create conditions along Syria’s borders with which Western partners, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, can justify direct military intervention.

Indeed, even the New York Times has been forced to admit that there are, as Cartalucci expertly argues in his article, no moderates in the ranks of the Syrian death squads. As Ben Hubbard wrote in April, 2013,

In Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head a court that applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce.

Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.

Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of. [emphasis added]

Even one of the FSA commanders, Bassel Idriss, recently admitted to openly collaborating with ISIS and al-Nusra, revealing yet another example of the fact that the “moderate rebels” are not moderate at all.

In an interview with the Daily Star of Lebanon, Idriss stated “We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in . . . Qalamoun . . . . Let’s face it: The Nusra Front is the biggest power present right now in Qalamoun and we as FSA would collaborate on any mission they launch as long as it coincides with our values.”

Idriss also admitted that many FSA fighters had pledged allegiance to ISIS. He said, “[ISIS] wanted to enhance its presence in the Western Qalamoun area. After the fall of Yabroud and the FSA’s retreat into the hills [around Arsal], many units pledged allegiance [to ISIS]”.

Abu Fidaa, a retired Syrian Army Colonel who is now a part of the Revolutionary Council in the Qalamoun, corroborated Idrisss’ statements by saying that “A very large number of FSA members [in Arsal] have joined ISIS and Nusra. In the end, people want to eat, they want to live, and the Islamic State has everything.”

Not only the FSA, but also the Syrian Revolutionary Front has also openly admitted to working with Nusra and al-Qaeda. The leader of the SRF, Jamaal Maarouf admitted that his brigades coordinate with Nusra and al-Qaeda regularly.

ISIS Is Controlled By The U.S. And NATO

It is important to point out that the Islamic State is not some shadowy force that emerged from the caves of Afghanistan to form an effective military force that is funded by Twitter donations and murky secretive finance deals. IS is entirely the creation of NATO and the West and it remains in control of the organization.

As Tony Cartalucci writes in his article “Implausible Deniability: West’s ISIS Terror Hordes In Iraq,”

Beginning in 2011 – and actually even as early as 2007 – the United States has been arming, funding, and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and a myriad of armed terrorist organizations to overthrow the government of Syria, fight Hezbollah in Lebanon, and undermine the power and influence of Iran, which of course includes any other government or group in the MENA region friendly toward Tehran.

Billions in cash have been funneled into the hands of terrorist groups including Al Nusra, Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and what is now being called “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” or ISIS. One can see clearly by any map of ISIS held territory that it butts up directly against Turkey’s borders with defined corridors ISIS uses to invade southward – this is because it is precisely from NATO territory this terrorist scourge originated.

ISIS was harbored on NATO territory, armed and funded by US CIA agents with cash and weapons brought in from the Saudis, Qataris, and NATO members themselves. The “non-lethal aid” the US and British sent including the vehicles we now see ISIS driving around in.

They didn’t “take” this gear from “moderates.” There were never any moderates to begin with. The deadly sectarian genocide we now see unfolding was long ago predicted by those in the Pentagon – current and former officials – interviewed in 2007 by Pulitzer Prize-winning veteran journalist Seymour Hersh. Hersh’s 9-page 2007 report, “The Redirection” states explicitly:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

“Extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam” and are “sympathetic to Al Qaeda” – is a verbatim definition of what ISIS is today. Clearly the words of Hersh were as prophetic as they were factually informed, grounded in the reality of a regional conflict already engineered and taking shape as early as 2007. Hersh’s report would also forewarn the sectarian nature of the coming conflict, and in particular mention the region’s Christians who were admittedly being protected by Hezbollah.

While Hersh’s report was written in 2007, knowledge of the plan to use death squads to target Middle Eastern countries, particularly Syria, had been reported on even as far back as 2005 by Michael Hirsh and John Barry for Newsweek in an article entitled “The Salvador Option.”

Regardless, Cartalucci states in a separate article, “NATO’s Terror Hordes In Iraq A Pretext For Syria Invasion,”

In actuality, ISIS is the product of a joint NATO-GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] conspiracy stretching back as far as 2007 where US-Saudi policymakers sought to ignite a region-wide sectarian war to purge the Middle East of Iran’s arch of influence stretching from its borders, across Syria and Iraq, and as far west as Lebanon and the coast of the Mediterranean. ISIS has been harbored, trained, armed, and extensively funded by a coalition of NATO and Persian Gulf states within Turkey’s (NATO territory) borders and has launched invasions into northern Syria with, at times, both Turkish artillery and air cover. The most recent example of this was the cross-border invasion by Al Qaeda into Kasab village, Latikia province in northwest Syria.

Cartalucci is referring to a cross-border invasion that was coordinated with NATO, Turkey, Israel, and the death squads where Israel acted as air force cover while Turkey facilitated the death squad invasion from inside its own borders.

Keep in mind also that, prior to the rapid appearance and seizure of territory by ISIS in Syria and Iraq, European media outlets like Der Spiegel reported that hundreds of fighters were being trained in Jordan by Western intelligence and military personnel for the purpose of deployment in Syria to fight against Assad. The numbers were said to be expected to reach about 10,000 fighters when the reports were issued in March, 2013. Although Western and European media outlets would try to spin the operation as the training of “moderate rebels,” subsequent reports revealed that these fighters were actually ISIS fighters.

Western media outlets have also gone to great lengths to spin the fact that ISIS is operating in both Syria and Iraq with an alarming number of American weapons and equipment. As Business Insider stated, “The report [study by the London-based small arms research organization Conflict Armament Research] said the jihadists disposed of ‘significant quantities’ of US-made small arms including M16 assault rifles and included photos showing the markings ‘Property of US Govt.’” The article also acknowledged that a large number of the weapons used by ISIS were provided by Saudi Arabia, a close American ally.

ISIS Attack On Taqba Airbase – The Precursor To A NATO Attack On Syria

Keeping in mind that ISIS is controlled and directed by NATO and Western intelligence, the fact that the death squads have recently focused on the Taqba Airbase in Raqqa province is significant. Particularly when viewed in context of the recent “debate” taking place in front of the American public by the Obama administration on whether or not to engage in targeted airstrikes inside Syria.

For those who may not see the pattern – while the United States and NATO deliberated engaging in targeted airstrikes in Syria and the Syrian government subsequently states its opposition to those attacks and its intentions to shoot down the planes delivering those strikes if they do not coordinate with the Syrian government, death squads have effectively eliminated the air defense capability of the Syrian government in the east of the country.

After all, the Pentagon even stated that one of the biggest threats to an airstrike operation in Syria is the Syrian government’s air defenses. Thanks to ISIS, those air defenses no longer exist in the east of Syria.

This was the end game of the ISIS battle to take over Taqba from the start – eliminate air defenses so that the NATO powers can launch airstrikes against the Syrian military and thus freeing up a launching pad for the terrorists to conduct attacks even deeper into Syria.

Even as the U.S. House was debating whether or not to pass token legislation to passively allow the Obama administration to perpetrate yet another foreign war against a sovereign nation that poses no threat to the United States, rabid warmonger John McCain was grilling Secretary of State John Kerry in what amounted to nothing more than some mildly entertaining D.C. theatre.

McCain grilled Kerry on the reason why the United States is not engaging in airstrikes against Assad’s air defenses as well as a full-scale ground invasion. Attempting to somehow paint Assad as worse than ISIS, McCain stated,

I think at least we owe the Free Syrian Army, negate the air attacks that they will be subjected to when they finish their training and equipping, and go into the fight. So why is it that we won’t at least news release Bashar al Assad’s air activity which has slaughtered thousands and thousands and thousands, 192,000 dead, 3 million refugees, and we’re not going to do anything about Assad’s air capabilities? And finally, ISIL first, that’s what you’re telling these young men who really view Assad as the one who has slaughtered their family members. Not ISIL. As bad as ISIL is.

McCain’s position is not surprising considering the fact that he apparently has a close relationship with al-Qaeda, ISIS, and its affiliates. After all, it was McCain who was photographed in a meeting with Salem Idriss, the leader of the Free Syrian Army and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and ISIS.


Remember also that McCain was photographed cavorting around with Abu Bakr, the “moderate rebel” who was seen cutting out a Syrian soldier’s heart and eating it for the camera.


ISIS IS Al-Qaeda

It is important to remember that the so-called leader of ISIS is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. As Voltaire Net describes Baghdadi,

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is an Iraqi who joined Al-Qaeda to fight against President Saddam Hussein. During the U.S. invasion, he distinguished himself by engaging in several actions against Shiites and Christians (including the taking of the Baghdad Cathedral) and by ushering in an Islamist reign of terror (he presided over an Islamic court which sentenced many Iraqis to be slaughtered in public). After the departure of Paul Bremer III, al-Baghdadi was arrested and incarcerated at Camp Bucca from 2005 to 2009. This period saw the dissolution of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, whose fighters merged into a group of tribal resistance, the Islamic Emirate of Iraq.

On 16 May 2010, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was named emir of the IEI, which was in the process of disintegration. After the departure of U.S. troops, he staged operations against the government al-Maliki, accused of being at the service of Iran. In 2013, after vowing allegiance to Al-Qaeda, he took off with his group to continue the jihad in Syria, rebaptizing it Islamic Emirate of Iraq and the Levant. In doing so, he challenged the privileges that Ayman al-Zawahiri had previously granted, on behalf of Al-Qaeda, to the Al-Nusra Front in Syria, which was originally nothing more than an extension of the ISI.

Regardless, false assumptions surrounding the true leadership of ISIS would be called into question in January of 2014 when Al-Arabiya, a Saudi-owned and operated news agency, published an article as well as a video of an interrogation of an ISIS fighter who had been captured while operating inside Syria.

When asked why ISIS was following the movement of the Free Syrian Army and who had given him the orders to do so, the fighter stated that he did not know why he was ordered to monitor the FSA’s movement but that the orders had come from Abu Faisal, also known as Prince Abdul Rachman al-Faisal of the Saudi Royal Family.

An excerpt from the relevant section of the interrogation reads as follows:

Interrogator: Why do you (ISIS) monitor the movement of the Free Syrian Army?

ISIS Detainee: I don’t know exactly why but we received orders from ISIS command.

Interrogator: Who among ISIS gave the orders?

ISIS Detainee: Prince Abdul Rachman al-Faisal, who is also known as Abu Faisal.

Such revelations, of course, will only be shocking news to those who have been unaware of the levels to which the Saudis have been involved with the funding, training, and directing of death squad forces deployed in Syria. Indeed, the Saudis have even openly admitted to the Russian government that they do, in fact, a number of varied terrorist organizations across the world.

Even tired mainstream media organizations such as Newsweek (aka The Daily Beast) can no longer ignore the facts surrounding the Saudis’ involvement with the organization of terrorist groups across the world.

Note also that Voltaire Net describes al-Nusra, a documented al-Qaeda connected group, as merely an extension of the IEI (Islamic Emirate of Iraq) which itself was nothing more than a version of Al-Qaeda In Iraq. Thus, from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, came the IEI, which then became the Islamic Emirate of Iraq and the Levant. IEIL then became ISIS/ISIL which is now often referred to as IS.

In other words, Nusra=Al-Qaeda-IEI=IEIL=ISIL=ISIS=IS.

With the information presented above regarding the nature of the Free Syrian Army and the so-called “moderate rebels,” it would be entirely fair to add these “moderate” groups to the list as well.

Although too lengthy of a study to be presented in this article, it is important to point out that al-Qaeda is entirely a creation of the West, created for the purpose of drawing the Soviets into Afghanistan in the 1970s and a host of other geopolitical goals in the middle east and around the world, 9/11 being the most memorable instance of Western intelligence al-Qaeda mobilization.[1]

While the White House’s recent “plan” to “detect and degrade” ISIS is simply more of the same rhetoric covering the fact that NATO has been funding, arming, training, and directing ISIS and related organizations for the purpose of overthrowing Assad.


[1] Tarpley, Webster Griffin. 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made In USA. 5th Edition. Progressive Press. 2011.

Is the CIA’s ISIS Cult Already Collapsing in Iraq ?

17.09.2014 Author: William Engdah

6464564Since the early 1950’s, when the CIA station chief in Munich became aware of the effective use of radical Jihadist Sunni Muslims from the Soviet Union by Gerhard von Mende’s wartime Ostministerium, US intelligence has sought to use the fanaticism of radical Islamists to its advantage. In my latest book I call it, “Amerikas Heiliger Krieg.” The alliance of nominally Christian American forces with nominally Muslim Salafists to kill and destroy was justified with a peculiar American brand of self-appointed Holy Mission. In reality the alliance between CIA and radical Islam was never holy. The events surrounding ISIS demonstrate.

The CIA’s creation of Sunni Mujahideen “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan after 1979, with the essential aid of a Saudi named Osama bin Laden to drive the Red Army from Afghanistan was but the beginning of decades-long covert manipulation of Holy War Muslim fanatics to wage active war as surrogates for the geopolitical agenda of certain Washington circles. The Muslim fighters were sometimes purely mercenary, sometimes devout Salafists or Wahhabite Sunnis. The main point for the backers in Washington was that the Juhadists killed the right “enemy.”

The latest such attempt by the CIA and US Special Forces is ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and, if we are to believe their slick YouTube propaganda, that unholy terror of ISIS is “soon to come to your local theatres in Germany, England, Russia, USA.” ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, known by its Arabic acronym Daash, for “Dulat al-Islam fi al-Iraq wal-Sham” – “the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria,” is a Sunni Salafist organization that grew we are told, out of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

After a stunning series of apparent military victories in Iraq this past week or more, the myth of ISIS invincibility is apparently crumbling with astonishing rapidity.

Consider the following direct reports from Iraqi sources:

28th Aug: Moqtada Al Sadr meets with Ammar al-Hakim of the Islamic Supreme Council and releases a statement: We agree on the need to do a real partnership in Iraq to meet the security challenges in the country. Sadr has also stated that he acted on the wishes of the Marja (Sistani) when he opposed Nouri Al Maliki and made sure the latter had to step down.

28th Aug: Collapse of Daash: Kurdish Peshmerga forces are making rapid progress in taking back Zammar and Ain Zala to the north west of Mosul in Nineveh. Peshmergas are advancing from four directions and the Iraqi Air Force and US warplanes are carrying out airstrikes on Daash fighters in the area. In some cases, Daash fighters are abandoning their weapons and fleeing. 18 Daash fighters are picked up by advancing Peshmergas to the west of Zammar. 19 vehicles belonging to Daash are destroyed in air strikes. The Peshmergas are reported close to the centre of town. Daash fighters are mingling with civilians in an attempt to flee.

30th Aug: Mwafaq Hawijah Ali a leader of Daash dies from his injuries in a failed attack on the Baiji Refinery.

30th Aug: The Iraqi Ministry of Defence announces the freeing of 6 villages in Amerli and the destruction of 5 tanks and 5 vehicles belonging to Daash and the culling of 59 Daash Terrorist. Fa Inaa HizbAllah hum fi Ghalibun.

30th Aug: Peshmerga forces carry out a large scale attack to the west of Mosul under US air cover. The aim is to purge Daash from the area.

30th Aug: Sunni uprising against Daash: Qasim al-Fahdawi, MP from Anbar, states that Tribes in Anbar are drawing up plans to rise up and take back cities under Daash control.

31st Aug: Iraqi Security forces aided by Peshmerga fighters and backed by Shia militias start to attack Daash and lift the siege of Amerli.Fighters of Sadr’s Salam Brigades enter the town of Amerli amidst heavy fighting. Iraqi Security Forces and Peshmerga fighters break the siege and the back of Daash. Local “Shia” militias attack and free three towns to the east of Tikrit. They were backed by the Iraqi Air Force. The Peshmergas are reporting that the Daash fighters they are now facing have lost their “will.” They are using mosque loudspeakers to ask their fighters to leave the areas of Sulieman Bek.The Peshmergas retake three villages in Sulaiman Bek.

31st Aug: Jassim Mohammed Jaafar, a Turkoman Minister, confirms that Government forces and Shia militias have broken the siege of Amerli.Like the Nazis fleeing Soviet troops and surrendering to Allied Armies, Daash fighters flee towards the Peshmergas and away from Shia Militias. The Peshmergas report arresting/capturing 36 Daash fighters in their attack on Amerli.

1st Sep: Marthiya Afkham, of the Iranian Foreign Ministry congratulates the Iraqi Security Forces, Government, Sistani, and the people of Amerli for breaking the siege of Daash.

1st Sep: Kurdish Peshmerga and Iraqi Security Forces carry out a joint operation and surround the sub district of Sulaiman Bek. The morale of Daash fighters is believed to be low and many are fleeing the area. The Peshmergas and Iraqi Army liberate Suleiman Bek.

2nd Sep: Daash withdraws its forces from Daqouq after the breaking of its siege of Amerli by Iraqi Security Forces.

3rd Sep: Iraqi Air Force drops leaflets over Mosul warning residents to stay away from Daash’s headquarters about to be bombed and to avoid Daash vehicles. Daash evacuates its headquarters that are later bombed by the Americans.

3rd Sep: Tribal leaders from Anbar have voiced their support for the Iraqi Government and Haider Al Abadi and its fight against terrorism. They have requested the government to empower and allow local fighters to take on the terrorists occupying the cities of Ramadi, Fallujah and towns bordering Syria.

3rd Sep: The Iraqi Army has taken back control of Al Atheem dam in the north of Baqouba. The army’s operation was supported by air strikes and resulted in the death of an unknown Daash commander (Emir)

3rd Sep: Government claims for the day: 20 Daash fighters are killed in air strikes in Dhuluiya, south of Tikrit. More Daash fighters are killed in air strikes on Tikrit including a local Daash leader Khairallah Nayef al-Janabi. 45 Daash/rebel fighters killed in Fallujah including a Saudi national in air strikes in Fallujah

Daash or ISIS or ISIL or IS, whatever the name, it is becoming more and more clear that the only real power of that rag-tag band of psychopathic criminals masquerading as religious Jihadists came from its “friends in high plaes.” Perhaps when the Saudi monarchy began to get nervous about the threat of an ISIS Jihad attacking the Saudi monarchy itself and the Saudis began to pressure Qatar to cut financial support to Daash the façade of invincibility began to crumble. Notable in this light is the report that a ‘trusted source’ close to the Saudi – Lebanese multi-billionaire and former Lebanese Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, said on condition of anonymity, that the final green light for the war on Iraq with ISIS was given behind closed doors, at the sidelines of the Atlantic Council’s Energy Summit in Istanbul, Turkey, on November 22 – 23, 2013. The Atlantic Council is one of the most influential US think tanks with regard to US and NATO foreign policy and geopolitics. The same source stated that the key coordinator of Daash military actions was US Ambassador to Turkey, Francis Riccardione. “As far as I know, nothing moves without Ambassador Riccardione”, the Hariri intimate added.

A former CIA private contractor, Steven Kelley told Iran’s PressTV in an August 28 inverview, that the ISIL is “a completely fabricated enemy. The funding is completely from the United States and its allies, and for people to think that this enemy is something that needs to be attacked in Syria or Iraq is a farce because obviously this is something that we created, we control and only now it has become inconvenient for us to attack this group as a legitimate enemy,” Kelley said.

The origins of the ISIS go directly back to the CIA-created Al-Qaeda and their role in the savage toppling of Libya’s Muhammar Qaddafi in 2012. The leader of the Libyan rebels later admitted that his fighters included Al-Qaeda linked jihadists who had fought against US and UK troops in Iraq. Those Iraqi Jihadists came from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the name of ISIS before it was rebranded by the CIA. With the assistance of US and NATO intelligence and air support, the Libyan Al Qaeda rebels captured Gaddafi and summarily executed him in the street, all the while enthusiastically chanting “Allah Akbar,” of course in very democratic tones.

After Qaddafi’s overthrow by the US, hiding behind the skirts of France and the UK, after Gaddafi was overthrown, Libyan armories were looted, and massive quantities of weapons were sent by the Libyan rebels to Syria, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, smuggled into Syria through Turkey, a NATO ally where US Ambassador, Francis Riccardione, sits, the man Erdogan last year threatened to make persona non grata. The times Libyan arms arrived on September 14th, 2012, just three days after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed by the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi. At that same time Jihadist fighters from Libya began flooding into Syria as well, including experienced commanders who had fought in multiple theaters. The US and its allies, especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar and to an extent Turkey, were now focused on taking down Assad’s government in Syria. As in Libya this regime change was to be framed in terms of human rights. It failed miserably.

And the horror YouTube purporting to show a lone, masked, black-clad ISIS psychopath on a hill savagely beheading US journalist James Foley, according to a British media analysis, was faked. A British scientific video analysis shows the knife ostensibly cutting the throat of Foley and not a drop of blood spurts out, nor does Foley make any frantic effort to free himself.

The video as well as the remarkably similar video of the purported beheading of journalist Steven Sotloff both show the same fully-black-masked executioner, dubbed in the British media as ‘Jihadi John’ as he suspiciously has a strong British accent. The perpetrators of that faked video are no doubt known to John Brenan, CIA Director and NSC advisor, Susan Rice and the Washington neo-conservatives determined to push President Obama into a full-scale war against Iraq and Syria, using their ISIS as the pretext. The operation seems to be falling apart on all fronts.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
First appeared:

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

How to Defeat ISIS, According to Ted Cruz

Why the senator’s brand of foreign policy is dangerous

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

The Republican Party is divided on foreign policy. There are “interventionists” like John McCain and Lindsey Graham who want America to more aggressively wage war—either directly or via proxies—in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Ukraine, and beyond. And there are “isolationists” like Rand Paul who worry that if America tries to fix the world’s problems through the barrel of a gun, we’ll become a bankrupt empire rather than a prosperous republic.

Then there’s Ted Cruz, who unites both factions by embodying the worst of each.

Take Cruz’s position on ISIS. Like McCain and Graham, Cruz believes in basing American policy on the most apocalyptic assessment of the ISIS threat. When Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee this week, Cruz did not ask him to analyze the risk ISIS poses to the United States. He asked Dempsey to sketch the “worst-case scenario” that ISIS could possibly present. Then Cruz took to the airwaves to chastise the White House for not recognizing the severity of the danger.

Cruz is particularly incensed by the Obama administration’s failure to recognize the threat of an ISIS attack across the Rio Grande. “First and foremost,” hewrote on CNN’s website, “Washington should resolve to make border security a top priority finally, rather than an afterthought, of this plan in light of concerns about potential ISIS activities on our southern border.” That’s right. America’s “foremost” priority when it comes to ISIS should be neither Iraq nor Syria but Mexico.

Like McCain and Graham, Cruz also wants to kill first and ask questions later. He’s suggested that America “bomb [ISIS] back to the Stone Age.” (The quote echoes General Curtis LeMay’s advice during Vietnam; that turned out well.) At this week’s hearing, Cruz demanded not merely that the U.S. “destroy ISIS—not degrade them.” He also demanded that it do so “within 90 days.” When Dempsey said that wasn’t possible, Cruz issued a press release saying the general was wrong.

But while Cruz resembles McCain and Graham in hyping threats and dropping bombs, he morphs into Rand Paul when the subject turns to political engagement overseas. McCain and Graham want to train and arm the Free Syrian Army so that when America bombs ISIS, non-jihadist rebels seize their territory and eventually pressure Bashar al-Assad into a political settlement. Cruz doesn’t. When it comes to Syria’s “moderate” opposition, he’s doubtful that the United States “can tell the good guys from the bad guys.”

That may be true. But most commentators who share Cruz’s skepticism about arming the rebels are skeptical of a bombing campaign too, arguing that it won’t do much good on the ground. Cruz doesn’t care. He wants to pulverize Syria from the air without any effort at political change on the ground. America’s strategy against ISIS, he insists, should not be “laden with impractical contingencies, such as resolving the Syrian civil war.”

Cruz is equally indifferent to the politics of Iraq. McCain and Graham want to leverage America’s renewed military involvement there to create a government in Baghdad inclusive enough to lure Sunnis away from ISIS. Cruz thinks that’s a waste of time. In an interview with Sean Hannity, he mocked Dempsey for saying that to defeat ISIS “we need to see political reconciliation. We need to change the conditions on the ground so people are not susceptible to extremism.” Cruz was incredulous. “Look,” he told Hannity, “it’s not our job to be social workers in Iraq and put them all on expanded Medicaid.”

Like George W. Bush before them, McCain and Graham are militaristic optimists. They want America to bomb and arm its way toward a free, pro-American Middle East. Cruz is a militaristic pessimist. He mocks the Obama administration’s effort to foster reconciliation “between Sunnis and Shiites in Baghdad” because “the Sunnis and Shiites have been engaged in a sectarian civil war since 632.” Notably absent from his rhetoric is the Bush-like claim that Muslims harbor the same desire for liberty as everyone else. Instead of mentioning that most of ISIS’s victims have been fellow Muslims, Cruz frames America’s conflict in the language of religious war. “ISIS right now is the face of evil. They’re crucifying Christians, they’re persecuting Christians,” he told Hannity.

Notice the difference. When Sunnis kills Shiites, Cruz shrugs because there’s been a sectarian divide within Islam since 632. But when Muslims kills Christians—another conflict with a long history—Cruz readies the F-16s.

With his combination of military interventionism and diplomatic isolationism, Cruz probably better reflects the views of GOP voters than any of his potential 2016 rivals. According to polls, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to see ISIS as a threat to the U.S. and to back airstrikes against it, but less likely to support arming Syria’s non-jihadist rebels. As Republican strategist Ford O’Connell recently told The Hill, “Ted Cruz is probably most in line with the Republican base in the sense he doesn’t want to have a discussion of Syria versus Iraq. He wants to dismantle and destroy ISIS. Period.”

More than a decade after the invasion of Iraq, this is where the GOP has ended up. Ted Cruz wants to kill people in the Middle East who he believes might threaten the United States. And he wants to defend Christianity there. Other than that, he really couldn’t care less.

American foreign policy “logic” regarding Syria, Iran and the “Islamic State”


What is going on in Syria with regards to the “Islamic State” (former ISIS) is appalling:

The Syrian Army is waging heavy attacks on IS positions everyday, while the US is claiming that IS is a creation of the Syrian government or its “ally”.

At the same time the US considers Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia “coalition partners” in the fight against IS, while all of them have been funding, arming and supporting IS for years.

The US wants to invest even more in the “moderate rebels” of the so called “Free Syrian Army”, an entity that mostly exists on paper and hardly plays a role in Syrias civil war. Now, these “moderates” who are supposed to do the ground fighting have openly declared a “truce” with IS because both want to fight against the Syrian government. The deal was brokered by Al Qaidas affiliate in Syria, the Nusra Front.

So, according to “American foreign policy “logic”:
“Moderate” rebels who work with Al Qaida (Nusra) and make truce with IS = Good
Syrian government that fights Al Qaida and IS = Bad

It becomes even more bizarre:
“John Kerry says Iranian role in coalition to confront Islamic State in Syria precluded by support of Damascus regime”

This is just as rational as if Stalin had said in 1945 that the Americans are not entitled to be part of the “allies” against Nazi Germany because they support England (who was already fighting Nazi Germany).
At the same time the Americans support the Kurdish Peshmerga in Iraq in their fight against IS. ==> Kurdish Peshmerga who fight IS = Good
Now, listen what the Kurds say about Iran:
“”They gave us rockets, cannons, maps,” a grateful Bakhtiar said of the Iranians, gesturing at the large-scale maps competing for wall space. “We needed these things badly.”
The Kurdish leader also confirmed the presence of consultants from the Pasdaran, also known as the Revolutionary Guard — who, he said, “were very helpful””


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!


Ziad Fadel



CITY:  The SAA has killed a major leader of the American-supported terrorist groups, Jamaal Ma’roof, who used to head the headless Jabhat Thuwwaar Sooriyaa (Front of Syria’s Revolutionaries. Yawn.)   Along with his daughter, aids and commanders were also vaporized.  The terrorist websites identified his adjutant, Muhammad Al-Faysal, as another rat casualty.


Khaan Shaykhoon area:  The SAA killed 23 rodents in a firefight.  I have no names.


Al-‘Aamiriyya:  The SAA confirmed the deaths of 6 rodents with 2 surrendering.


Al-Sayyaad:  SAA killed 7 rats.  No names.


Hallooz:  My deceased mother-in-law’s home town overlooking Jisr Al-Shughoor.  A pickup with a 23mm cannon was destroyed.  The 3 rats on it were Tunisians.  Tunisians in a Christian village known for its biblical appearance, a church built over a spring of running, ice cold water and my favorite white donkey?!  May God damn every Saudi child molester and all Qatari apes!  Their day is coming.


Fighting here also:  Kaneesat Nakhla (Church of the Palm), Kafr Laataa, Abu Al-Dhuhoor, Tal Salmu, Humaymat Al-Daayer, Al-Buwayti. 


بعد اندحار الإرهابيين فيه.. تفكيك عشرات العبوات الناسفة بحي غويران في الحسكة



Old City:  Now completely rat free.  3 brush-and-flush operations by SAA engineers and security personnel resulted in 3 separate warehouses used by Nusra rats to both store and develop anti-personnel weapons.   The 1st was found on Bayt Rujoob Street.  It contained precursor chemicals either manufactured or purchased in both Saudi Arabia and Turkey.  Inside this warehouse were containers with magnesium sulphate, ammonium nitrate, alcohol, and Saudi or Turk purchased C-4 used to enhance IEDs.  These substances will be kept by the SAA for use in blowing apart America’s plan to destroy Syria.


In the second combing operation, a huge warehouse was located containing 5 IEDs each with a 300kg payload enhanced by C-4 from Turkey, missiles and rockets.  Interestingly, advanced satellite communications equipment was also found and is being analyzed as I write.


In the third operation, more precursor chemicals from the criminal regimes of Saudi Arabia and Turkey were found along with 5 120mm and 2 82mm mortars and 15 mortar shells.  Captagon was also left behind.


This amount of weaponry is not usually left for the enemy.  It is evidence that the command structure of the Nusra rat organization is collapsing and that any esprit de corps which might have existed has evaporated.  The scenes at these warehouses reflected complete confusion.


Talbeesa:  SYRIAN PERSPECTIVE CAN CONFIRM THE DEATH OF RAT LEADER “ABU HAATEM AL-DHAHHAAK” in a strikingly accurate SAAF operation.  He led the organization called “Jabhat Al-Eemaan Billaah” (Faith in Allah Front. Yawn)  He was turned into atoms along with 5 other of his adjutants.


Mr. Abu Dhahhaak (“The laughing man”) can be seen here in this exclusive SyrPer photo.


Al-Za’faraana Village and ‘Ayn Hussayn Road:  A convoy with 3 pickup trucks festooned with the usual 23mm cannon was sent to Abe’s Junk Yard by the SAA.  18 rodents were killed:

  • Thaa`er Al-Nijm
  • Talaal Mustafaa
  • Muhammad ‘Ali Al-Saani’
  • Badreddeen Hussayn

No other names were sent.  The rest appear to be Turks and Iraqis.


Talbeesa:  In another operation by SAA, a van with terrorists aboard was hit by an NDF RPG and turned into a George Forman Grill.  The carcasses were so burned it was impossible to determine identities.


Umm Al-Reesh Village:  An attempted infiltration to the area between Umm Haaratayn and Al-Mas’oodiyya went awry when citizens alerted the SAA by contacting the MoI.  The rest was pure carnage as the, SAA backed by NDF, killed all 15 rats:

  • Misbaah Al-Shurooqi
  • Nizhaam Mahsoob
  • ‘Alaa` Al-Feejaawi

The rest could not be identified.


Jisr Al-Khuraab:  An attempted flank attack on SAA forces surrounding the area of Al-Wa’er Orchards was pushed back.  Spotters and scounts reported 7 confirmed rat fatalities.


Fighting reported in these areas:  South ‘Ayn Al-Hussayn Village, Al-Deek Farms in Talbeesa, Al-Sama’leel, Al-Mushrifa, Al-Sa’en, Taldu, Tayr-Ma’alla Village. 


Umm Sharshooh area:  A bulldozer in Al-Hilaaliyya Farms was destroyed along with its driver.


Kafr Laahaa:  The SAA killed a rat leader from Al-Nusra along with 4 of his rat litter-mates:

  • Abdul-Baari ‘Ayyaash
  • Sabri Taaleb

The other 3 could not be identified.


Dayr Fool:  All foreigners here.  All 10 killed.  No names.


Fighting reported here only a few hours ago: Talass Village, West Salaam Village, ‘Unq Al-Hawaa, Rajm Al-Qassr, South of North Umm Sarj. 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Islamic State: Assad lures President Obama into his web .

Tuesday 16 September 2014


The Syrian regime, which the US has sworn to overthrow, has asked America to co-operate in the fight against Isis militants. It is likely to exact a high price for any collaboration

Syria has asked Washington to engage in military and intelligence collaboration to defeat their mutual enemy Isis, inviting US congressmen and senators to visit Damascus to discuss joint action against the jihadis who threaten both America and the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

It’s an offer that President Barack Obama will have to refuse – but not without some embarrassment. After deciding to bomb the forces of Isis, which calls itself Islamic State, in Syria as well as Iraq, Mr Obama was confronted by Vladimir Putin’s warning that any such unilateral action in Syria would be “an act of aggression”.

The US President will now have to explain yet again why he cannot collaborate against America’s “apocalyptic” enemies with a Syrian regime which he has also sworn to overthrow – even though this regime is fighting exactly the same enemies.

The letter to the US House of Representatives pointedly invites Congress and Senate members – who last year condemned the Syrian government for chemical attacks in the suburbs of Damascus – to collaborate “to save Syrian and American lives from a possible dirty bombing terror attack” by Isis, Jabhat al-Nusra and other groups.

The Syrian offer, contained in a letter yesterday from Mohamed Jihad al-Laham, the Speaker of the tame Syrian parliament – addressed, among others, to John Boehner, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader – also claims that the “moderate” Syrian opposition which the US has promised to aid and train is identical to the jihadi groups supporting Isis, (or Isil as the Syrians prefer to call it, using another of the organisation’s acronyms).



What was called the “moderate opposition”, Mr Assad’s parliamentary Speaker writes, “sold to Isil the innocent, beheaded US journalist. There is nothing to prevent those groups from selling US weapons to Isil as … is their proven common practice.” Arming “non-state Islamic jihadi individuals”, the letter goes on, “is a clear violation of [UN] Security Council Resolution 2170 … that any co-operation to combat terrorism should be among the member states”.

Resolution 2170, passed last month, calls on member states “to suppress the flow of foreign fighters, financing and other support to Islamist extremist groups in Iraq and Syria” – identified in the UN document as Isis and the al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra – and “to prevent fighters from travelling from their soil to join the groups”.

Syria, of course, insists no “moderate” opposition now exists in the country, a statement which carries the mark of truth, and that all opponents of Mr Assad’s rule were from the start Wahhabi-inspired Sunni jihadists – which was not in fact the case. Mr Laham’s letter – which could not have been sent without the approval of the regime – accuses Saudi Arabia, which funds Mr Assad’s enemies, of sponsoring schools which are “teaching the ideology of hate, ‘takfiri’ [a Muslim accusing a fellow Muslim of apostasy] and jihad as holy duty”.

Timeline: The emergence of Isis

The letter may have been influenced by Khaled Mahjoub, a US citizen and Syrian businessman who is also a personal confidant of Bashar al-Assad, for it repeats Mr Mahjoub’s oft-quoted observation that only re-education of “terrorists’” families and communities through “loving Sufism” can rehabilitate those who use violence. Sufism, with its mystical poetry and its desire to find divine love, is regarded by many Syrians as the very opposite of “jihadism”; Sufi missionaries spread Islam into Africa and central Asia as well as India.

All of which is a far cry from the titanic civil war in Syria where “moderate” schools of Sufism take third place to military hardware and the Russian-Iranian alliance in the regime’s battle against Isis. In truth, Western intelligence agents have for many months now been in contact with their Syrian opposite numbers to secure the kind of collaboration in secret which the regime is now offering in public – though without, it has to be said, much success.


Come into my parlour, says the spider to the fly. For the Syrian regime’s web has proven far tougher than America and Europe imagined – and the principal fly has exhibited all the characteristics of weakness, fear and indecision which the Syrian spider understands. Only just over a year ago, the US was planning to smash the Syrian regime with bombs and missiles – and now that it wants to smash the Isis regime with bombs and missiles, Syria will exact a price for any assistance Washington seeks.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 413 other followers