Islamic State fighters: "We will drown all of you in blood.''

[thoughtomator]

The power vacuum is our fault...but is there any evidence ISIS exists due to blowback? Their primary objective is to establish a caliphate.

ISIS isn't blowback. ISIS is the creation of the CIA.

Remember what Ambassador Stevens was doing when he was killed? Running US weapons to "moderate rebels" in Syria.

But of course we knew those "rebels" weren't "moderate" at all, as evidenced by John "The Vetter" McCain being photographed standing next to someone who had previously been seen eating the heart of a human victim.

ISIS is a manufactured threat to keep the national security state going. It was created to keep you in fear and compliant to your masters.

When you think "ISIS", think "brainchild of Hillary Clinton".

The "we will drown you in blood" talk, and talk of threats to Chicago, etc. come out of a US PSYOPS operation. These things were aimed at the US public from conception, like the hoax about Jew registration in Ukraine a few months back.

ISIS is also a weapon created to be wielded by the political elites to be used against the US public. Remember, it was not long ago that Obama and Kerry tried to get the public to consent to a full-scale US military intervention in Syria, in support of the same folks who are now supposed to be such a massive threat.

You fight ISIS most effectively by refusing to believe the propaganda, and refusing to let this artificially and deliberately created fear guide your decision making.

 

[69360]

ISIS isn't blowback. ISIS is the creation of the CIA.

Remember what Ambassador Stevens was doing when he was killed? Running US weapons to "moderate rebels" in Syria.

But of course we knew those "rebels" weren't "moderate" at all, as evidenced by John "The Vetter" McCain being photographed standing next to someone who had previously been seen eating the heart of a human victim.

ISIS is a manufactured threat to keep the national security state going. It was created to keep you in fear and compliant to your masters.

When you think "ISIS", think "brainchild of Hillary Clinton".

The "we will drown you in blood" talk, and talk of threats to Chicago, etc. come out of a US PSYOPS operation. These things were aimed at the US public from conception, like the hoax about Jew registration in Ukraine a few months back.

ISIS is also a weapon created to be wielded by the political elites to be used against the US public. Remember, it was not long ago that Obama and Kerry tried to get the public to consent to a full-scale US military intervention in Syria, in support of the same folks who are now supposed to be such a massive threat.

You fight ISIS most effectively by refusing to believe the propaganda, and refusing to let this artificially and deliberately created fear guide your decision making.

That's a good theory but you fail to understand the syrian war. It's not just 2 sides. There is IS, Assad's government troops, the fighters the US armed, and several other jihadi groups. Some of the jihadists fight together, but there are 3 main parties in this war with various alliances. IS battles the other jihadis in syria as well as the us armed factions and Assad's troops.

Did the US arm IS in Syria? No. Did IS capture US made weaponry in Syria like they did in Iraq? Very possibly they did.

Despite the tinfoil hattery swirling the US never armed IS.

 

[thoughtomator]

Despite the tinfoil hattery swirling the US never armed IS.

Yeah, it just so happened that when ISIS captured all that US equipment, they already had the advanced training needed to use them.

Are you aware that the Taliban shot down an Apache in Afghanistan with a Stinger missile, and that missile was traced to a CIA shipment made in 2011?

Are you aware that the leader of ISIS was released from prison by Obama in 2009?

Are you aware that the US has been supplying weapons, intel, and training to jihadis since at least the early 1980s?

Are you aware that many of the folks we hired/supplied to take out Gadafi in Libya are the same people now calling themselves ISIS?

I think that you need to step back and re-analyze the facts, because there is nothing that supports the claim that the US did not supply them, and a mountain of evidence that says we did.

 

[MaxHen]

That's a good theory but you fail to understand the syrian war. It's not just 2 sides. There is IS, Assad's government troops, the fighters the
Despite the tinfoil hattery swirling the US never armed IS.

Hmmm

 

[thoughtomator]

Hmmm

Thanks for the timely link, Max.

As we can see, the true "tinfoil hat" theory is that the US government isn't the hand in the ISIS glove as part of the puppet show that keeps the perpetual-war state going.

I still have an open question, which is: Is the US government even now, at this moment, still funding and training ISIS?

The lack of any evidence to the contrary tells me that it is. So on the one hand the govt is arming/training ISIS, on the other that same government tells us that ISIS is the worst threat ever. This is classic Hegelian dialectic manipulation.

When the government tells you that "ISIS plans to..." you can safely translate that to "the US government plans to..."

There is NO difference. ISIS is the US government.

 

[Muwahid]

That's a good theory but you fail to understand the syrian war. It's not just 2 sides. There is IS, Assad's government troops, the fighters the US armed, and several other jihadi groups. Some of the jihadists fight together, but there are 3 main parties in this war with various alliances. IS battles the other jihadis in syria as well as the us armed factions and Assad's troops.

Did the US arm IS in Syria? No. Did IS capture US made weaponry in Syria like they did in Iraq? Very possibly they did.

Despite the tinfoil hattery swirling the US never armed IS.

Wow someone who knows what they're talking about.

ISIS existed before as ISI, it was formed from the Mujahideen Shura councils (we're going back to the early 2000s now), and when they fought solely in Iraq it was a similar dynamic of them fighting multiple different blocs, from the shia, to other sunnis, to the kurds, etc.

It simply expanded into Syria.

The US - NEVER - funded ISIS... they funded people like FSA. The FSA was from the earliest days, overtaken by foreign influences, like the US, Turkey, and others, this was supposed to be the military arm to topple Bashar, and be grateful and loyal to the west. and be "pro democratic"

What happened was the salafist bloc came in, and they came in strong.

The US humvees and weaposn you see in ISIS' hands, comes from defeated 30,000 Iraqi troops.



These defeats put tanks, humvees, weapons, in the hands of ISIS.

Now the US is surely using them as an excuse to reinvade, but it's not to take your freedoms, its because IS does pose a threat to US interests in the region.

 

[thoughtomator]

The US - NEVER - funded ISIS

I wonder how you are so sure of that, especially given all the evidence that we did in fact do just that and it appears we are still doing so.

On what basis can you make that assertion?

 

[Muwahid]

I wonder how you are so sure of that, especially given all the evidence that we did in fact do just that and it appears we are still doing so.

On what basis can you make that assertion?

Sigh. The argument that ISIS was trained by the USA, comes from a misunderstanding of the region due to it's complexity. What is highly likely, is the US trained some Syrian rebels, funded some of them, and provided weapons to some of them.

What people are doing is seeing "Syrian rebels" and then, for whatever reason, replacing those words with "ISIS". There's about five major fronts in Syria

1 - Sunni FSA
2 - Sunni Salafi loyal to Aymen al Zawahiri [Like Jahbat Nusra]
3 - Sunni Salafi loyal to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi [ISIS]
4 - Syrian regime
5 - Shia militias like Hezbollah, the Shabiha, etc.

All the evidence points to foreign aid going to the first faction. Unless you provide evidence otherwise you're making assumptions which are highly illogical. For example the link provided above from the ibtimes, for some reason simply asserts with no evidence "ISIS trained by US in 2012", it's sources come from articles simply stating (as everyone already knew) the US, Jordan, Saudia etc. helped the early incarnations of the Syrian rebellion (FSA if you can remember who was the dominant sunni force in 2012).

You're critical of news articles which oppose your points im sure, and you fact check everything. You should do the same to articles such as the one posted above, it's based on one huge assumption.

 

[thoughtomator]

All the evidence points to foreign aid going to the first faction.

Um, no. John McCain was photographed with someone who was definitely not a member of the first faction.

Why are you so hell-bent on refusing to acknowledge the evidence that shows the US government is up to its ears in ISIS?

Is it the same motive that has you also hell-bent on refusing to acknowledge the evidence of US government involvement in 9/11?

Is the truth that painful to you?

 

[Muwahid]

Um, no. John McCain was photographed with someone who was definitely not a member of the first faction.

Why are you so hell-bent on refusing to acknowledge the evidence that shows the US government is up to its ears in ISIS?

Is it the same motive that has you also hell-bent on refusing to acknowledge the evidence of US government involvement in 9/11?

Is the truth that painful to you?

Are you talking about this image?

ISIS would not freely mix with a women, let alone one dressed in western clothing. ISIS follows a Hanbali Athari interpretation of Islam where a woman wearing something like trousers is really looked down on.

Where's the evidence these are ISIS fighters exactly?

 

[thoughtomator]

Are you talking about this image?

ISIS would not freely mix with a women, let alone one dressed in western clothing. ISIS follows a Hanbali Athari interpretation of Islam where a woman wearing something like trousers is really looked down on.

Where's the evidence these are ISIS fighters exactly?

I am referring to that image. Perhaps "ISIS" wouldn't mix with women, but the "Free Syrian Army" definitely wouldn't be making videos of them eating the hearts of people they killed.

That image is strong evidence that your theory is incorrect and that US aid is NOT limited to one faction in the Syrian war. This in turn demolishes any argument that the US did not supply ISIS because it only supplied "moderate" rebels.

Now that the basis of your theory is undermined, will you revise it appropriately to account for the evidence, or will you dig in further into your unsupported hypothesis?

 

[Muwahid]

I am referring to that image. Perhaps "ISIS" wouldn't mix with women, but the "Free Syrian Army" definitely wouldn't be making videos of them eating the hearts of people they killed.

That image is strong evidence that your theory is incorrect and that US aid is NOT limited to one faction in the Syrian war. This in turn demolishes any argument that the US did not supply ISIS because it only supplied "moderate" rebels.

Now that the basis of your theory is undermined, will you revise it appropriately to account for the evidence, or will you dig in further into your unsupported hypothesis?

Why was the basis of my argument undermined? There's no evidence that's ISIS in the photograph, and the people do not look like they belong to ISIS.

 

[thoughtomator]

Why was the basis of my argument undermined? There's no evidence that's ISIS in the photograph, and the people do not look like they belong to ISIS.

One of the individuals in that photograph was earlier featured in a Youtube video showing him eating the heart of a Christian he'd killed. Is that typical "moderate" FSA behavior?

 

[Muwahid]

One of the individuals in that photograph was earlier featured in a Youtube video showing him eating the heart of a Christian he'd killed. Is that typical "moderate" FSA behavior?

Can you post the video?

 

[thoughtomator]

Can you post the video?

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6254...rebels-cut-out-soldiers-heart-liver-eat-them/

 

[Muwahid]

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6254...rebels-cut-out-soldiers-heart-liver-eat-them/

From your own source, this is the heart of a regime soldier, not a Christian.

The individual is Abu Sakkar according to your source (who I did not see in the picture with McCain).

He's from Kata'ib Farook, not ISIS. They are or were part of FSA.

I'm just trying to figure out. How exactly is someone from the FSA (not ISIS) committing a cannibalistic act, proof of the US government funding ISIS.

 

[anaconda]

those aren't words that we want to take in jest. The feller said "We will drown all of you in blood.'' Well...guess what. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

So you're advocating killing someone for their "tough talk?"

 

[thoughtomator]

Look, this doesn't need to be this difficult.

The US government has no problem whatsoever with supplying and funding and training radicals - the record is as clear as can be. The US has a decades-long record of supporting the most extreme of Islamic jihadis. We did it in Afghanistan in the 1980s and we did it in Libya in 2011, and we did it to many other countries in between. The CIA has been the point man on all of these projects.

The US government has trained, supplied and funded Syrian rebels. Officially, we don't know where the weapons all went to. We DO know that the Taliban got a hold of a shipment of Stinger missiles that were checked out by the CIA, which is incontrovertible proof that CIA activities are putting high-tech US weapons into the hands of jihadis.

The US government has had training bases in Jordan for Syrian rebels, some of whom are now known to be ISIS.

The US government released the leader of ISIS from prison.

ISIS' one known source of external funding is Qatar, a US puppet state if there ever was one - same place that was considered friendly enough ground to both the US government and the Taliban for Obama to release the Bergdahl swap prisoners into Qatari custody.

ISIS' target list is wide-ranging yet curiously omits US-aligned states Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia - even though it borders two of them and the third is supposedly a divinely-mandated enemy.

ISIS soldiers somehow knew how to operate the advanced US weaponry they captured, immediately. With zero training time.

It is known that CIA-supplied arms went to al-Nusra, an Al-Qaeda offshoot, which a few months ago pledged its allegiance to ISIS.

The US government simultaneously claims that ISIS is the biggest threat to the USA, even though it was markedly indifferent to the rapid advance of ISIS throughout Iraq.

The CIA claimed to have been taken by surprise by the emergence of ISIS, even though they have been in Syria for years, supposedly vetting "good" rebels from bad ones, and had every reason to be aware of what was going on.

And let us not forget, John Kerry and John McCain tried to pull off a blatant fraud (remember Elisabeth O'Bagy?) to get us to directly intervene militarily in support of these rebels - knowing full well that the FSA was the least of them and would not be in a position to direct matters once Assad was overthrown.

And the group that the CIA was funding got nowhere - they're just holding ground - yet all these other rebels who allegedly weren't getting US funding have made such massive gains that they were able to set their sights on another country (now multiple other countries, as we add Lebanon).


These are just some of the data points on which I am analyzing the situation. Either the CIA are the most monumental fools ever to exist, or ISIS is a CIA dirty war op. There aren't any other reasonable conclusions - and the official reasons are the least plausible of all.

 

[anaconda]

One of the individuals in that photograph was earlier featured in a Youtube video showing him eating the heart of a Christian he'd killed. Is that typical "moderate" FSA behavior?

I would not rule out the possibility that most of these atrocity stunts and press releases of alleged quotations are NATO orchestrated for public sentiment.

 

[thoughtomator]

I would not rule out the possibility that most of these atrocity stunts and press releases of alleged quotations are NATO orchestrated for public sentiment.

I wholly agree. I think the entire operation is orchestrated for public sentiment. The security state is manufacturing a reason to stay in business.