Posted on 04/17/2024 11:14:50 AM PDT by TigerClaws
Within just 24 hours of the horrific mass shooting in Moscow’s Crocus City Hall on March 22nd, which left at least 137 innocent people dead and 60 more critically wounded, US officials blamed the slaughter on ISIS-K, Daesh’s South-Central Asian branch. For many, the attribution’s celerity raised suspicions Washington was seeking to decisively shift Western public and Russian government focus away from the actual culprits - be that Ukraine, and/or Britain, Kiev’s foremost proxy sponsor.
Full details of how the four shooters were recruited, directed, armed, and financed, and who by, are yet to emerge. The Kremlin claims to have unearthed evidence that Kiev’s SBU were the ultimate architects, which the agency denies, charging that Russian authorities knew about the attack and permitted it to happen, in order to ramp up its assault on Ukraine. It has been reported that the killers received funds from a cryptocurrency wallet belonging to ISIS’ Tajikistan wing.
Whatever the truth of the matter, it is certain that the four individuals responsible had no clue who or what truly sponsored their monstrous actions. Contrary to the group’s mainstream portrayal, as inspired by fanatic, extreme religious fundamentalism, ISIS are primarily guns for hire. At any given time, they act at the behest of an array of international donors, bound by common interests. Funding, weapons, and orders reach its fighters circuitously, and opaquely. There is almost invariably layer upon layer of cutouts between the perpetrators of an attack claimed by the group, and its ultimate orchestrators and financiers.
Given ISIS-K is currently arrayed against China, Iran, and Russia - in other words, the US Empire’s primary adversaries - it is incumbent to revisit their “parent” group’s origins. Emerging seemingly out of nowhere just over a decade ago, before dominating mainstream media headlines and Western public consciousness for several years before vanishing again, at one stage the group occupied vast swaths of Iraqi and Syrian territory, declaring an “Islamic State”, which issued its own currency, passports, and vehicle registration plates.
Devastating military interventions independently launched by the US and Russia wiped out that demonic construct in 2017. The CIA and MI6 were no doubt immensely relieved. After all, extremely awkward questions about how precisely ISIS came to be were comprehensively extinguished. As we shall see, the terror group and its caliphate did not emerge in the manner of lightning on a dark night, but due to dedicated, determined policy hatched in London and Washington, implemented by their spying agencies.
‘Continuingly Hostile’
RAND is a highly influential, Washington DC-headquartered “think tank”. Bankrolled to the tune of almost $100 million annually by the Pentagon and other US government entities, it regularly disseminates recommendations on national security, foreign affairs, military strategy, and covert and overt actions overseas. These pronouncements are more often than not subsequently adopted as policy.
For example, a July 2016 RAND paper on the “unthinkable” prospect of “war with China” forecast a need to fill Eastern Europe with US soldiers in advance of a “hot” conflict with Beijing, as Russia would undoubtedly side with its neighbour and ally in such a dispute. It was therefore considered necessary to tie down Moscow’s forces at its borders. Six months later, scores of NATO troops duly arrived in the region, ostensibly to counter “Russian aggression”.
Similarly, in April 2019 RAND published Extending Russia. It set out “a range of possible means” to “bait” Moscow “into overextending itself,” so as to “undermine the regime’s stability.” These methods included; providing “lethal aid” to Ukraine; increasing US support for the Syrian rebels; promoting “regime change in Belarus”; exploiting “tensions” in the Caucasus; neutralising “Russian influence in Central Asia” and Moldova. Most of this came to pass thereafter.
In this context, RAND’s November 2008 Unfolding The Long War makes for disquieting reading. It explored ways the US Global War on Terror could be prosecuted once coalition forces formally left Iraq, under the terms of a withdrawal agreement inked by Baghdad and Washington that same month. This development by definition threatened Anglo dominion over Persian Gulf oil and gas resources, which would remain “a strategic priority” when the occupation was officially over.
“This priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war,” RAND declared. The think tank went on to propose a “divide and rule” strategy to maintain US hegemony in Iraq, despite the power vacuum created by withdrawal. Under its auspices, Washington would exploit “fault lines between [Iraq’s] various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts”, while “supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran”:
“This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces…The US and its local allies could use nationalist jihadists to launch proxy campaigns to discredit transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace…This would be an inexpensive way of buying time…until the US can return its full attention to the [region]. US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict…by taking the side of conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.” An incomprehensible graphic from the RAND report
‘Great Danger’
So it was that the CIA and MI6 began supporting Sunni “nationalist jihadists” throughout West Asia. The next year, Bashar Assad rejected a Qatari proposal to route Doha’s vast gas reserves directly to Europe, via a $10 billion, 1,500 kilometre-long pipeline spanning Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey. As extensively documented in WikiLeaks-released diplomatic cables, US, Israeli and Saudi intelligence immediately decided to overthrow Assad by fomenting a local Sunni rebellion, and started financing opposition groups for the purpose.
This effort became turbocharged in October 2011, with MI6 redirecting weapons and extremist fighters from Libya to Syria, in the wake of Muammar Gaddafi’s televised murder. The CIA oversaw that operation, using British intelligence as an arm’s length cutout to avoid notifying Congress of its machinations. Only in June 2013, with then-President Barack Obama’s official authorisation, did the Agency’s cloak-and-dagger connivances in Damascus become formalised - and later admitted - under the name “Timber Sycamore”.
At this time, Western officials universally referred to their Syrian proxies as “moderate rebels”. Yet, Washington was well-aware its surrogates were dangerous extremists, seeking to carve a fundamentalist caliphate out of the territory they occupied. An August 2012 US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report released under Freedom of Information laws observes that events in West Asia were “taking a clear sectarian direction,” with radical Salafist groups “the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.”
These factions included Al Qaeda’s Iraqi wing (AQI), and its umbrella offshoot, Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). The pair went on to form ISIS, a prospect the DIA report not only predicted, but seemingly endorsed:
“If the situation unravels, there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria…This is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want in order to isolate the Syrian regime…ISI could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create great danger.”
Despite such grave concerns, the CIA continued to dispatch unaccountably vast shipments of weapons and money to Syria’s “moderate rebels”, well-knowing this “aid” would almost inevitably end up in ISIS hands. Moreover, Britain concurrently ran secret programs costing millions to train opposition paramilitaries in the art of killing, while providing medical assistance to wounded jihadists. London also donated multiple ambulances, purchased from Qatar, to armed groups in the country.
Leaked documents indicate the risk of equipment and personnel from these efforts being lost to Al-Nusra, ISIS, and other extremist groups in West Asia was judged unavoidably “high” by British intelligence. Yet, there was no concomitant strategy for countering this hazard at all, and the operations continued apace. Almost as if training and arming ISIS was precisely the desired outcome of MI6.
One of the following has to be true, considering that the Neocons cleared Ukraine 56 minutes after the attack.
1. The Neocons were involved with the attack (or an earlier plan to attack).
2. The Neocons have ISIS on Speed-Dial
3. The Neocons are lying to us when they say they’re CERTAIN Ukraine was not involved.
CLEARLY all of the above make the Neocons look even worse, which is something that I didn’t think was possible.
The Syrian civil war gave them a space to hide, and US SF and Kurds have been playing whack-a-mole with them in Western Syria ever since.
ISIS also targeted US forces in Afghanistan.
The US has done far more to destroy ISIS than either Russia or China, and the notion that the US created ISIS is deranged.
I don’t know the answers to everything but in the matter of ISIS the lawyers for the British woman stripped of her citizenship for joining ISIS at the age of 15 Shamima Begum found something.
They found that this 15-year old girl and others of her age were smuggled from Turkey into Syria to join ISIS by an operative for Canadian intelligence.
And who does Canadian intelligence work with in “Five Eyes”?
And what kind of use did ISIS have for 15-year-old girls need I say more?
The Neocons meet with the communists in the dark of night, to get their unified plan right.
bbb
Remember Wray publicly warning about an attack in the US by ISIS-K?
So essentially, the IC is using their creation to destabilise the nation they supposedly serve.
No mention of how ISIS fighters were treated for injuries against Syria in Israeli hospitals.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/11/exclusive-israel-is-tending-to-wounded-syrian-rebels/
Nice find.
So we created Al Qaeda and we created ISIS.
Perhaps we should stop ‘helping’ the Middle East?
Oh. We created the current Iran by installing the Shah.
Made a mess in Iraq, Libya, Ukraine...
Cui bono
“ISIS are primarily guns for hire”
Nonsense from beggining to end. That all Islamic terrorist groups get funding from sources they keep secret, those funds have always been found to have come from like-minded rich Muslims in the Middle East. The teeroists like ISIS do not act “at the behest” of anyone, or anything, other than their Islamist agenda. They get donors because those donors agree with their agenda. The donors do not direct them, but are just satisfied with the anti-western and/or Muslim sectarian mayhem they create.
“Given ISIS-K is currently arrayed against China, Iran, and Russia “
ISIS-K may at times appear to be “arrayed against China, Iran and Russia”, but that is more because where they are - in the “stans”, which collectively border Iran, China and Russia. That does not mean they are not also anti-western nor that they have had time had Shia Muslim targets, which they have had.
“Devastating military interventions independently launched by the US and Russia wiped out that demonic construct in 2017.”
No it did not. Like Al Queda and all the rest major losses may reduce their size, their operations, their notice and their effectiveness. Like Al Queda that does not “wipe them out”. Shrunken greatly, yes. “Wipes out”, no.
“The CIA and MI6 were no doubt immensely relieved. After all, extremely awkward questions about how precisely ISIS came to be were comprehensively extinguished”
No. That was extinguished before 2017. People are always wrongly confating bod consequences (from stupid actions) with bad intentions. Nearly always wrong.
“For example, a July 2016 RAND paper on the “unthinkable” prospect of “war with China” forecast a need to fill Eastern Europe with US soldiers in advance of a “hot” conflict with Beijing, as Russia would undoubtedly side with its neighbour and ally in such a dispute. It was therefore considered necessary to tie down Moscow’s forces at its borders.”
No. It was considered that it, in a “hot conflict” with China, it “would be necessary” to enlarge NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe.
And “Six months later, scores of NATO troops duly arrived in the region, ostensibly to counter “Russian aggression”.”
Again, it had nothing to do with the Rand paper. It was scheduled joint NATO training manuevers, schedueled before
any such report from Rand.
“April 2019 RAND published Extending Russia. “
The authors characterization of the Rand study is off base and countere to some what the Rand authors said about various things. You have to read the Rand report so see the differences for yourself.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
The same is true with the Rand report about the “long war”, in the middle east. You have to read the whole report yourself. It is not a “directive” to anyone. It is a what if report with many caveats.
For instance in re: “This priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war,” RAND declared. The think tank went on to propose a “divide and rule” strategy to maintain US hegemony in Iraq, despite the power vacuum created by withdrawal. Under its auspices, Washington would exploit “fault lines between [Iraq’s] various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts”, while “supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran”:
“This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces…The US and its local allies could use nationalist jihadists to launch proxy campaigns to discredit transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace…This would be an inexpensive way of buying time…until the US can return its full attention to the [region]. US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict…by taking the side of conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.”
ISIS nor ISIS-K were given any support in that. In Iraq and in Afghanistan the support went to nationalist tribal groups, and yes in Iraq that meant Sunni groups trying to fend off Shia groups funded by Iran.
But read the Rand paper yourself:
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG738.pdf
“As extensively documented in WikiLeaks-released diplomatic cables, US, Israeli and Saudi intelligence immediately decided to overthrow Assad by fomenting a local Sunni rebellion, and started financing opposition groups for the purpose.”
NOT TRUE. The regime change agenda against Assad began during the GWBush admin, with overt and covert efforts, along with some Middle East partners. That’s at least a decade earlier and was unrelated to any oil pipeline plans. The U.S. wanted Assad out, the Suadis and others wanted him out (he had been on the outs with most of the Sunni regimes for many years, due to his alliagnment with the Mullahs in Tehran.
That the civil strife against Assad had no western purpose than the opporunistic chance to take advantage of the so-called “Arab Spring”, but as was evident, beyond cueing to the domestic “Syrian oppostion” groups that their covert helpers would be with them, it was clear, all the way, it was an idea with no real plan for how it could possibly unseat Assad, nor any recognition of how Russian and Iranian influence in Syria would grow because of it. It was really an ignorant stupid idea to begin with. Thank the NEOCons in the GWBush admin who started the agenda, before Obama was ever thinking of running for office.
The mistake the west and the “moderate” Middle East Sunni regimes made with respect to Syria was the same mistake they had made in Afghanistan - total lack of vetting of the motivations of the “fighters” they helped, in the end meant they had used Islamist ideologue fighters who had their own goals of what “success” would mean. Bad consequences of stupid decisons, not intentions. Brighter minds eventually stopped the poorly thought out efforts for “regime change” in Syria.
“1. The Neocons were involved with the attack (or an earlier plan to attack).”....”2. The Neocons have ISIS on Speed-Dial”...”3. The Neocons are lying to us when they say they’re CERTAIN Ukraine was not involved.”
None of the above have to be true.
Thank you for your well-sourced post.
That’s why I come to FR. Real discussions.
They created ISIS like I create the rain.
The Al blow themselves up for virgin class rebranding is still the Al blow themselves up for virgins class.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4743965/user-clip-israeli-secret-intelligence-service
03:08 - 03:50 (on Mossad - "We thought we should ask...what shall we call it in English..") - describes the name Israel came up with at that time was: the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service - ISIS.
On the acronym ISIS - brittanica.com states:
English-speaking countries and news agencies have an aversion to long names. So when the jihadist militant group that called itself الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام, or “The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham,” entered the world political sphere, it was referred to with a simple acronym. Well, it was intended to be a simple acronym. News outlets, and common citizens by influence, began to call the group ISIS, short for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. However, some political figures, including the president of the United States, Barack Obama, use the acronym ISIL, which stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. So what is the underlying difference between the two acronyms: ISIS and ISIL? And why do some people say one, and some say the other?
When the group started to gain notoriety in the press and politics, confusion over just how to shorten its name in English arose from one tricky phrase: al-Sham. The term has no direct translation in English and refers to Greater Syria, the geographic area in the Middle East that the group desires for its vision of an Islamic state. The English word closest in meaning to “al-Sham” is the dated name for a slightly overlapping geographic area: the Levant, which spans the countries of Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Turkey. Therefore, the acronym ISIL is the more-accurate name, as it recognizes these areas that the group affects and targets, while ISIS refers exclusively to Iraq and Syria. The tendency to call the group ISIS arose as they became active militants in the Syrian civil war in 2012. Though less accurate, the name ISIS has become entrenched in the international lexicon and is still used by many politicians and news companies.
Many world leaders have taken to using the name Daesh to refer to the group, rather than ISIS or ISIL. This name is also an acronym, but one that takes from the Arabic words in the group’s longer moniker. The phonetic sound of the acronym is intended to be unpleasant, and the rare use of an acronym in Arabic is meant to attribute disrespect to the group and to ignore the meaning behind its longer name. In the midst of the confusion and name calling, since 2014 the group has decided to call itself the shorter and to-the-point Islamic State, or IS.
“Nice find. “So we created Al Qaeda and we created ISIS.”
Not true in either case. Read my long post on this thread.
But first off Osama Bin Laden created Al Queda, not the U.S., long before 9/11. ISIS developed internally in Iraq from defeated Sunni terrorist groups, including some Al Queda, once the U.S. and Iraq forces quelled the civil war there. They were still active even if small, before the business in Syria broke out. Then they took advantage of the Syrian situation by recruiting Sunni fighters that wanted to go after the Muslim heretic, Assad, which ISIS was able to do in Syria because of the disarry there. There were no bodies ally in Syria. Not Assad’s, or the west’s. Eventually the U.S. and the Kurds mopped up most of them in Syria, and the Kurds and the Iraqis did the same in Iraq.
Again, for the U.S. another case of consequences not intentions.
“None of the above have to be true.”
If so, how can they be so sure of who did it, 56 minutes after the attack? After all, we more than 18 months after Nordstream, and still no closer to finding the culprit.
Didn’t ISIS announce it?
“Didn’t ISIS announce it?”
Fair point, but then why didn’t we say something like “Hold on, there needs to be some level of investigation first”. Also, those ISIS ‘members’ definitely didn’t look or behave like typical ISIS terrorists (who would never get caught alive, or even flee to that extent).
“Nice find.
So we created Al Qaeda and we created ISIS.
Perhaps we should stop ‘helping’ the Middle East?
Oh. We created the current Iran by installing the Shah.
Made a mess in Iraq, Libya, Ukraine...”
And the seed planted before Al Qaeda was us backing the Taliban against Russia. So yes, we pretty much created and trained Al Qaeda during that involvement. We made and trained Bin Ladin.
It all circles back to our CIA getting involved where they should not have.
Why? War profits.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.