The Covert Origins of ISIS?
Evidence exposing who put ISIS in power, and how
it was done.
Would it interest you to know who helped these
psychopaths rise to power? Would it interest you
to know who armed them, funded them and trained
them? Would it interest you to know why?
September 06, 2014
Islamic militant group ISIS, formerly known as
Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and recently rebranded as the
so called Islamic State, is the stuff of
nightmares. They are ruthless, fanatical,
killers, on a mission, and that mission is to
wipe out anyone and everyone, from any religion
or belief system and to impose Shari'ah law. The
mass executions, beheadings and even
crucifixions that they are committing as they
work towards this goal are flaunted like badges
of pride, video taped and uploaded for the whole
world to see. This is the new face of evil.
it interest you to know who helped these
psychopaths rise to power? Would it interest you
to know who armed them, funded them and trained
them? Would it interest you to know why?
story makes more sense if we start in the
middle, so we'll begin with the overthrow of
Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.
Libyan revolution was Obama's first major
foreign intervention. It was portrayed as an
extension of the Arab Spring, and NATO
involvement was framed in humanitarian terms.
fact that the
CIA was actively working to help the Libyan
rebels topple Gaddafi was no secret, nor
airstrikes that Obama ordered against the Libyan
government. However, little was said about
the identity or the ideological leanings of
these Libyan rebels. Not surprising, considering
the fact that
the leader of the Libyan rebels later admitted
that his fighters included Al-Qaeda linked
jihadists who fought against allied troops
jihadist militants from Iraq were part of what
national security analysts commonly referred to
as Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Remember Al-Qaeda in Iraq
was ISIS before it was rebranded.
the assistance of U.S. and NATO intelligence and
air support, the Libyan rebels captured Gaddafi
and summarily executed him in the street, all
the while enthusiastically chanting "Allah
Akbar". For many of those who had bought the
official line about how these rebels were
freedom fighters aiming to establish a liberal
democracy in Libya, this was the beginning of
the end of their illusions.
to the U.S. and NATO backed intervention, Libya
had the highest standard of living of any
country in Africa. This according to the
U.N.'s Human Development Index rankings for
2010. However in the years following the
the country descended into chaos, with
extremism and violence running rampant.
Libya is now widely regarded as
failed state (of course those who were naive
enough to buy into the propaganda leading up to
the war get defensive when this is said).
after Gaddafi was overthrown, the Libyan
armories were looted, and massive quantities of
weapons were sent by the Libyan rebels to Syria.
The weapons, which included anti-tank and
anti-aircraft missiles were smuggled into Syria
through Turkey, a NATO ally. The times of London
reported on the arrival of the shipment on
September 14th, 2012. (Secondary confirmation in
this NYT article) This was just three days
after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed by the
attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. Chris
Stevens had served as the
U.S. government's liaison to the Libyan rebels
since April of 2011.
great deal media attention has focused on the
fact that the State Department did not provide
adequate security at the consulate, and was slow
to send assistance when the attack started,
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh
released an article in April of 2014 which
exposed a classified agreement between the CIA,
Turkey and the Syrian rebels to create what was
referred to as a "rat line". The "rat line" was
covert network used to channel weapons and
ammunition from Libya, through southern turkey
and across the Syrian border. Funding was
provided by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Stevens dead any
direct U.S. involvement in that arms shipment
was buried, and Washington would continue to
claim that they had not sent heavy weaponry into
at this time that
jihadist fighters from Libya began flooding into
Syria as well. And not just low level
militants. Many were
experienced commanders who had fought in
U.S. and its allies were now fully focused on
taking down Assad's government in Syria. As in
regime change was to be framed in terms of human
rights, and now
overt support began to supplement the backdoor
channels. The growing jihadist presence was
swept under the rug and covered up.
as the rebels gained strength, the reports of
war crimes and atrocities that they were
committing began to create a bit of a public
relations problem for Washington. It then became
standard policy to insist that U.S. support was
only being given to what they referred to as
"moderate" rebel forces.
distinction, however, had no basis in reality.
interview given in April of 2014, FSA commander
admitted that his fighters regularly conduct
joint operations with Al-Nusra. Al-Nusra is
the official Al-Qa’ida branch in Syria. This
statement is further validated by an interview
given in June of 2013 by Colonel Abdel Basset
Al-Tawil, commander of the FSA's Northern Front.
In this interview he openly discusses his ties
with Al-Nusra, and expresses his desire to see
Syria ruled by sharia law. (You can verify the
identities of these two commanders here in
this document from The Institute for the
Study of War)
Moderate rebels? Well it's complicated. Not that
this should really come as any surprise.
Reuters had reported in 2012 that the FSA's
command was dominated by Islamic extremists, and
New York Times had reported that same year
that the majority of the weapons that Washington
were sending into Syria was ending up in the
hands Jihadists. For two years the U.S.
government knew that this was happening, but
they kept doing it.
FSA's ties to Al-Nusra are just the beginning.
In June of 2014
Al-Nusra merged with ISIS at the border between
Iraq and Syria.
review, the FSA is working with Al-Nusra, Al-Nusra
is working with ISIS, and the U.S. has been
sending money and weapons to the FSA even though
they've known since 2012 that most of these
weapons were ending up in the hands of
extremists. You do the math.
Retired Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney admits: “We
Helped Build ISIS”:
Note that the first version of this video I
was quickly taken down. To insure that this clip
does not disappear we have provided a secondary
here. So if the video below isn't playing
then use that link and upload it elsewhere.
Syria, we backed I believe, in some cases some
of the wrong people and not in the right part of
the Free Syrian Army (FSA) that's a little
confusing to people. So I've always maintained,
and go back quite some time that we were backing
the wrong types. I think it's going to turn out
maybe this weekend in a new special that Brett
Baer is going to have Friday that's gonna show
some of those weapons from Benghazi ended up in
the hands of ISIS. So we helped build ISIS.
context, the sarin gas attacks of 2013
which turned out to have been committed by the
Syrian rebels, makes a lot more sense
doesn't it? If it wasn't enough that
Russian investigators, and Pulitzer prize
Seymour Hersh all pinned that crime on
Washington's proxies, the rebels themselves
threatened the West that they would expose
what really happened if they were not given more
advanced weaponry within one month.
By the way, this also explains why
Washington then decided to target
threat was made on June 10th, 2013. In what can
only be described as an amazing coincidence,
just nine days later,
the rebels received their first official
shipment of heavy weapons in Aleppo.
the second sarin gas fiasco, which was also
exposed and therefore failed to garner public
support for airstrikes, the U.S. continued to
increase its the training and support for the
February of 2014,
Haaretz reported that the U.S. and its
allies in the region, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and
Israel, were in the process of helping the
Syrian rebels plan and prepare for a massive
attack in the south. According to Haaretz Israel
had also provided direct assistance in military
operations against Assad four months prior (you
can access a free cached version of the page
May of 2014
PBS ran a report in which they interviewed
rebels who were trained by the U.S. in Qatar.
According to those rebels they were being
trained to finish off soldiers who survived
"They trained us to ambush regime or enemy
vehicles and cut off the road,” said the
fighter, who is identified only as "Hussein."
"They also trained us on how to attack a
vehicle, raid it, retrieve information or
weapons and munitions, and how to finish off
soldiers still alive after an ambush."
a blatant violation of the Geneva conventions.
It also runs contrary to conventional military
strategy. In conventional military strategy
soldiers are better off left wounded, because
this ends up costing the enemy more resources.
Executing captured enemy soldiers is the kind of
tactic used when you want to strike terror in
the hearts of the enemy. It also just happens to
be standard operating procedure for ISIS.
month after this report, in June of 2014, ISIS
made its dramatic entry, crossing over the
Syrian border into Iraq, capturing Mosul, Baiji
and almost reaching Baghdad. The internet was
suddenly flooded with footage of drive by
shootings, large scale death marches, and mass
graves. And of course any Iraqi soldier that was
captured was executed.
quantities of American military equipment
were seized during that operation. ISIS took
entire truckloads of humvees, they took
helicopters, tanks, and artillery. They
photographed and video taped themselves and
advertised what they were doing on social media,
and yet for some reason Washington didn't even
TRY to stop them.
U.S. military doctrine clearly calls for the
destruction of military equipment and supplies
when friendly forces cannot prevent them from
falling into enemy hands, but that didn't happen
here. ISIS was allowed to carry this equipment
out of Iraq and into Syria unimpeded. The U.S.
military had the means to strike these convoys,
but they didn't lift a finger, even though
they had been launching drone
strikes in Pakistan that same week.
would they do that?
Obama plays the role of a weak, indecisive,
liberal president, and while pundits from the
right have had a lot of fun with that image,
this is just a facade. Some presidents, like
George W. Bush, rely primarily on overt military
aggression. Obama gets the same job done, but he
prefers covert means. Not really surprising
considering the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski
was his mentor.
who know their history will remember that
Zbigniew Brzezinski was directly involved in the
funding and arming the Islamic extremists in
Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to weaken the
way Osama bin Laden was one of these anti-Soviet
"freedom fighters" the U.S. was funding and
operation is no secret at this point, nor are
the unintended side effects.
Officially the U.S. government's arming and
funding of the Mujahideen was a response to the
Soviet invasion in December of 1979, however in
his memoir entitled "From the Shadows" Robert
Gates, director of the CIA under Ronald Reagan
and George Bush Senior, and Secretary of Defense
under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama,
revealed that the U.S. actually began the covert
operation 6 months prior, with the express
intention of luring the Soviets into a quagmire.
(You can preview the relevant text
here on google books)
strategy worked. The Soviets invaded, and the
ten years of war that followed are considered by
many historians as being one of the primary
causes of the fall of the USSR.
example doesn't just establish precedent, what
we're seeing happen in Iraq, Afghanistan and
Syria right now is actually a continuation of a
old story. Al-Nusra and ISIS are ideological and
organizational decedents of these extremist
elements that the U.S. government made use of
thirty years ago.
U.S. the went on to create a breeding ground for
these extremists by invading Iraq in 2003. Had
it not been for the vacuum of power left by the
removal and execution of Saddam, Al-Qaeda in
Iraq, aka ISIS, would not exist. And had it not
been for Washington's attempt at toppling Assad
by arming, funding and training shadowy militant
groups in Syria, there is no way that ISIS would
have been capable of storming into Iraq in June
every level, no matter how you cut it, ISIS is a
product of U.S. government's twisted and
decrepit foreign policy.
of this may seem contradictory to you as you
watch the drums of war against ISIS begin to
beat louder and the air strikes against them are
Why would the U.S. help a terrorist organization
get established, only to attack them later?
why did the
CIA put Saddam Hussein in power in 1963?,
Why did the U.S. government back Saddam in 1980
when he launched a war of aggression against
Iran, even though they knew that he was using
chemical weapons? Why did the U.S. fund and arm
Islamic extremists in Afghanistan against the
a pattern here if you look closely. This is a
tried and true geopolitical strategy.
Build up a dictator or extremist group which can
then be used to wage proxy wars against
opponents. During this stage any crimes
committed by these proxies are swept under the
When these nasty characters have outlived their
usefulness, that's when it's time to pull out
all that dirt from under the rug and start
publicizing it 24/7. This obviously works best
when the public has no idea how these bad guys
came to power.[Reaction]
Finally, when the public practically begging for
the government to do something, a solution is
proposed. Usually the solution involves military
intervention, the loss of certain liberties, or
extremely useful. They have essentially done
Washington dirty work by weakening Assad. In
2014, while the news cycle has focused almost
exclusively on Ukraine and Russia, ISIS made
major headway in Syria, and as of August
they already controlled 35% of the country.
ISIS largely based in Syria, this gives the U.S.
a pretext to move into Syria. Sooner or later
the U.S. will extend the airstrikes into Assad's
backyard, and when they do
U.S. officials are already making it clear that
both ISIS and the Syrian government will be
targeted. That, after all, is the whole
point. Washington may allow ISIS to capture a
bit more territory first, but the writing is on
the wall, and has been for some time now.
Obama administration has repeatedly insisted
that this will never lead to boots on the
ground, however, the truth of the matter is that
anyone who understands anything about military
tactics knows full well that ISIS cannot be
defeated by airstrikes alone. In response to
airstrikes ISIS will merely disperse and conceal
their forces. ISIS isn't an established state
power which can be destroyed by knocking out key
government buildings and infrastructure. These
are guerrilla fighters who cut their teeth in
significantly weaken them, the war will have to
involve ground troops,
but even this is a lost cause. U.S. troops
could certainly route ISIS in street to street
battles for some time, and they might even
succeed in fully occupying Syria and Iraq for a
number of years, but eventually they will have
to leave, and when they do, it should be obvious
what will come next.
puppets that the U.S. government has installed
in the various countries that they have brought
down in recent years have without exception
proven to be utterly incompetent and corrupt. No
one that Washington places in power will be
capable of maintaining stability in Syria.
now, Assad is the last bastion of stability in
the region. He is the last chance they have for
a moderate non-sectarian government and he is
the only hope of anything even remotely
resembling democracy for the foreseeable future.
If Assad falls, Islamic extremist will take the
helm, they will impose shari'ah law, and they
will do everything in their power to continue
spreading their ideology as far and wide as they
world truly wants to stop ISIS, there is only
one way to do it:
First and foremost, the U.S. government and its
allies must be heavily pressured to cut all
support to the rebels who are attempting to
topple Assad. Even if these rebels that the U.S.
is arming and funding were moderate, and they're
not, the fact that they are forcing Assad to
fight a war on multiple fronts, only strengthens
ISIS. This is lunacy.
Syrian government should be provided with
financial support, equipment, training and
intelligence to enable them to turn the tide
against ISIS. This is their territory, they
should be the ones to reclaim it.
obviously this support isn't going to come from
the U.S. or any NATO country, but there are a
number of nations who have a strategic interest
in preventing another regime change and chaotic
aftermath. If these countries respond promptly,
as in right now, they could preempt a U.S.
intervention, and as long this support does not
include the presence of foreign troops, doing so
will greatly reduce the likelihood of a major
confrontation down the road.
U.S. government and its allies should should be
aggressively condemned for their failed regime
change policies and the individuals behind these
decisions should be charged for war crimes. This
would have to be done on an nation by nation
level since the U.N. has done nothing but enable
NATO aggression. While this may not immediately
result in these criminals being arrested, it
would send a message. This can be done. Malaysia
has already proven this
by convicting the Bush administration of war
crimes in abstentia.
might be thinking: "This all sounds fine and
good, but what does this have to do with me? I
can't influence this situation."
perspective is quite common, and for most
people, it's paralyzing, but the truth of the
matter is that we can influence this. We've done
it before, and we can do it again.
honest with you though, this isn't going to be
easy. To succeed we have to start thinking
strategically. Like it or not, this is a chess
game. If we really want to rock the boat, we
have to start reaching out to people in
positions of influence. This can mean talking to
broadcasters at your local radio station, news
paper, or t.v. station, or it can mean
contacting influential bloggers, celebrities,
business figures or government officials.
Reaching out to current serving military and
young people who may be considering joining up
is also important. But even if it's just your
neighbor, or your coworker, every single person
we can reach brings us closer to critical mass.
The most important step is to start trying.
are confused about why this is all happening,
watch this video we put out on September 11th,
message resonates with you then spread it. If
you want to see the BIG picture, and trust me
we've got some very interesting reports coming,
subscribe to StormCloudsGathering on Youtube,
and follow us on Facebook, twitter and Google