Russia FM Lavrov Calls Out US For Protecting ISIS; Says US Has ‘Ulterior Motives’ In Syria

What has been well-known amongst informed observers for quite some time is now becoming so obvious that it is almost impossible to hide except from the most gullible members of the general public – that fact the United States is not only not interested in fighting ISIS, but they are actively protecting and shielding it.

In truth, the US relationship with ISIS goes much deeper since the US created, armed, and trained the terrorist organization from its inception for the purpose of destroying the secular government of Bashar al-Assad and providing a bogeyman for the fearful masses back home to justify a greater police state and foreign military adventurism.

So far, only select members of the alternative media have successfully exposed the US role in the creation and support of ISIS. Undoubtedly, the directors and controllers of the Western mainstream press know much more than what they pretend to understand, and certainly much more than what they print. Foreign governments, silent as they may be, are also clearly aware of who created this terrorist threat and why.

Now, however, some state actors are becoming bolder when it comes to calling out the nature of the Syrian crisis, aside from the Assad government who has been calling out the United States and NATO for years on the issue.

Only recently, Sergei Lavrov called out the United States for not only having ulterior motives when it comes to alleged “campaign against ISIS,” but also in the protection that the U.S. has provided for ISIS fighters on the ground.

In an interview with Voskresnoye Vermya (Sunday Time) on Russia’s Channel One, Lavrov stated “Analyzing the actions of coalition member states, one cannot but suspect they have ulterior motives beyond the stated goal of fighting the Islamic State.

He continued by stating that “Some our colleagues among the coalition members told us they sometimes knew where certain ISIL regiments were stationed but the coalition’s command – which is, obviously, the US – did not give them the permission for an airstrike.”

Lavrov also pointed out that, if the United States were truly serious about its fight against ISIS, it would have cooperated with the Syrian government, the Kurds, and other interested parties actively fighting against the terrorist organization.

“If their goal is to prevent the consolidation of Iraqi and Syrian territories as the heartland of an ISIL-promoted caliphate, they should focus on helping those who are fighting these rebels on the ground – the Iraqi army, the Iraqi Kurds, the Syrian army and Syrian Kurdish militias,” he said.

“If coalition forces acted together with the government of the Syrian Arab Republic – and not only their sworn ally, the Iraqi government – and harmonized their approaches with those of Syrian armed forces on the ground, the combined effect would have been much stronger than what we have now,” Lavrov stated.

While Lavrov’s statements are important, they represent only a new dimension to the conflict as a result of being uttered by a Russian state official. It is now well-known amongst informed circles that the United States has not only used ISIS as an excuse to target Syrian infrastructure and now to justify a direct military conflict with the Syrian government, but also that the United States routinely protects, defends, and resupplies ISIS on the ground, even as it claims it is fighting a war against the organization.

Lavrov’s statements also echo the unheeded calls of other rational foreign policy proponents who have suggested that the real solution to ISIS terrorism in the Middle East and, particularly in Syria, is simply for the West and its Gulf allies to stop funding the terrorists allow the Assad government, Iraqis, and the Kurds – along with Iran and Hezbollah – to cut off supply lines and destroy ISIS and its affiliates in place.

The U.S. goal, however, has never been the destruction of ISIS, but of the Assad government. For the sake of the Syrian people and the people of the world, that must not be allowed to happen.

Could this be why Obama favors Sunnis?

Excerpts from the link:

It is rumored that the number of Shiites is higher in majority Sunni countries, but that they are under-reported by the powers-that-be. While that is impossible to verify, tracking of the patterns of the Obama administration's interventions (or lack thereof) seems to indicate that Obama favors Sunnis to Shiites.

Case-in-point: Syria. While the majority of the country is Sunni, the ruling Assads are Alawites, which is variety of Shiite. The people there have a saying: "Christians to Lebanon; Alawites to the grave", and it seems as if Obama is on board with that program. Admittedly, Assad is no angel, but the U.S. and Israel had a "could-be-worse" type of stability with Syria, (as we also did with Egypt, Libya, etc.) until certain groups like Free Gaza and Code Pink helped rabble-rouse the "Arab Spring" into fruition, and thus sent the region into a cacophony of sustained coups and bloodshed.

We've recently learned that the Obama administration has begun financially aiding the Sunni-dominated "Free Syrian Army". Unfortunately, the Free Syrian Army has been flying the Al Qaeda flag (see embedded video and NYT article). We have also learned that the Sunni-dominated Muslim Brotherhood terrorist group has been invited to the White House, has possible assets with a top-level security clearance embedded in the State Department, in DHS, and in other sensitive locations. Under the Bush foreign policy, we cut off aid to groups affiliated to terrorists, but with Obama, we apparently give aid to "the right types of terrorists" (ie: the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda & Hamas, for example, as opposed to the Shiite Hezbollah).

Now why would a nice, clean-cut community organizer like Barack Obama favor Sunnis? The most powerful Sunni entity on earth is Saudi Arabia. In 1988, the principal adviser to Prince Walid Bin Talal (a Saudi who was one of the world's richest men) named Khalid Al-Mansour took extraordinary measures (including fundraising) to help Obama get into Harvard Law School. We know this due to the testimony of powerful lawyer Percy Sutton who wrote a letter on his behalf. Percy Sutton had been the late Malcolm X's lawyer (as a side note, Malcolm X had become a Sunni shortly before his assassination). Under pressure, Sutton later claimed that he had mispoken, but it's easier to believe that he was "Cory Bookered" into recanting than that he misspoke in such a detailed way.

Later on in the life of Barry The Clever, another Sunni influence loomed large: Nadmi Auchi. Between Gulf Wars I and II, there had been a (try not to laugh) UN-administered "Oil-for-Food" program which went a long way towards enriching various Sunni Iraqi thugs (including Saddam Hussein), and Nadmi Auchi was one of them. You've probably heard of Tony Rezko -- he appears to have been the bagman between Nadmi Auchi's billions and Barack Obama's pocket.

Well, this is nothing new. When the USSR invaded Afghanistan, Carter and Brezhinski teamed up with the Saudis to recruit every fanatical Islamist group anywhere in the world to come fight there.

Same thing happened in Bosnia, in the 1990’s. The Clinton Administration was actively recruiting Islamists to come fight the Serbs. They even had an informal agreement with Al Zawahiri, which infuriated Mubarak at the time.

So now, the Obama Administration is stealthily giving support to ISIS, Al Nusra, etc. in order to topple Assad.

They always think they can use these guys, control them. But guess what?

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.