Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 7,438
I'd rather be alive and have my head intact than miss out on beautiful places.
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
I'd rather be alive and have my head intact than miss out on beautiful places.
I'm sure the two horribly murdered girls thought the same.
Hmm I remember when me and others were called crazy conspiracy theorists by those who hold a very simplistic black & white view of the world, as to why anyone would stage a chemical attack complete with fake victims, to get a desired political outcome
It was obvious at the time because it made zero sense as to why Assad would do that to his own people, he was winning.
The US encouraged the creation of ISIS in order to weaken Assad. It's all in black white in a declassified US intelligence report.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ersion11.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2IqGB08etTb5bApFe1FWPA
@Dis86 You think the White Helmets are legit? They were founded by an ex-British military officer who has a record going back to Kosovo. Use your brain.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ersion11.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2IqGB08etTb5bApFe1FWPA
@Dis86 You think the White Helmets are legit? They were founded by an ex-British military officer who has a record going back to Kosovo. Use your brain.
That still doesn't mean he didn't even today - sure the tide had turned in his favour but he still had and still has a long long way to go with some kind of final victory far from assured especially if foreign actors threw resources at the situation anew.
If it was a chemical attack carried out by forces on the side of the Assad regime though with the state of things on the ground it is far from certain that it was sanctioned at the highest levels. (None the less local commander(s) took a lot of heat for the losses and being pushed back a few days before and might have taken extreme measures in response to the pressure they were under from higher up to get results).
Seems legit lol.
?
It's a genuine 2012 US intelligence report from the Defense Intelligence Agency declassified as part of a court case. Google it.
Shows how our press was all in it together with the government and their regime change plan in Syria that this isn't more widely known.
States very clearly the Syrian opposition were predominantly jihadi nutters from the outset yet we still backed them and hoped a 'Salafist principality' would emerge to weaken Assad.
It did: ISIS.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
ISIS formed out of the power vacuum in Iraq, nothing even to do with Syria at the time, the civil war breaking out in Syria was nothing to do with America (at first) people were cut down by the fascist assad regime for protesting, just like he did in Lebanon to anyone who criticized his rule.
They didn't "create" ISIS, as in a conscious positive action that was carried out by the US. They spawned out of consequence, they weren't intentional.
The document doesn't look genuine to me.
The alleged attack in Douma was a complete joke.
The story they want you to believe is that the evil monster Assad or his demonic Syrian Arab Army signed off on a militarily useless chemical weapons attack in the last pocket of resistance of Ghouta even though they had used conventional weapons successfully to clear the rest of it and were in negotiations with the 'rebels' for their surrender who did a few days later.
So they were about to win yet did the one thing telegraphed in advance by the US et al as being an act that would trigger airstrikes?
The Russians even said in the days leading up to it they had intelligence that the jihadi rebels were going to stage a CW attack.
Makes no sense at all. The Syrian army does nothing without Russia signing off on it first. Cui bono? The only people that would gain from it were the 'rebels'.
Now look at the actual evidence for the attack. It comes entirely from the White Helmets and the 'rebels' in the area at the time, the Army of Islam.
The WHs were founded by an ex-British army officer and is funded by the UK, US etc - the same countries wanting to overthrow Assad. They have only ever operated in jihadi-controlled territory and their website calls for western 'intervention'. Strange for supposed humanitarians.
The Army of Islam is a Saudi-funded jihadist group, but if you can't trust Saudi-funded jihadis who can you trust?
Robert Fisk and numerous other journalists went there in the immediate aftermath and the locals contradicted the claims. The Russians found several of the people (including medical staff) in the video released by the rebels who were 'treated' after the attack and they were all perfectly healthy and said it was a hoax.
Interest from our press? Zero.
The OPCW couldn't find any sarin or other chemical weapons, but only traces of chlorine which anyone has access to and the cannisters found wouldn't be anywhere near enough to kill the numbers claimed. Two cannisters (that looked planted) killed over a hundred? In WW1 they had to fire hundreds of shells containing tons to be effective.
Once the Syrians make a move on the jihadi-infested Idlib we'll no doubt hear of another convenient CW attack.
Here's the Guardian talking about it. It is genuine.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq
Created? No. Encouraged and allowed them to grow? Definitely.
Remember the US bombing campaign before Russia got involved? During it ISIS were still growing in power taking over gov-controlled areas and sending huge convoys of oil to Turkey.
The largest military in the world couldn't stop that? They spared them. Russia joins and actually attacks them and within months the tide turns. Funny that. They showed satellite images of the huge convoys the US 'missed'.
Again, read that report. They admit to it... straight from the horse's mouth.
Where did that power vacuum in Iraq come from?
Read the report. The armed opposition was jihadi from the outset and the US backed them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
The SDF along with british and american special forces (amongst a dozen other countries) kicked ISIS out of Raqqa, how not surprising that you give Russia the credit.
From the removal of a fascist tyrant.
And I will when I have time.
They fought them in the areas they wanted to occupy later, but left them alone when they fought the Syrian gov.
Yeah, removing that tyrant based on a pack of lies sure worked out well...
ISIS wouldn't exist if the US/UK etc hadn't weakened Iraq and Syria first.
Another example of the west protecting jihadis was the hysteria last year when Syria indicated they were going to liberate Idlib which has tens of thousands of Al Qaeda there. The US, UK & France indicated they would take military action if Syria and Russia attacked so they backed down.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
Well, Iraq had some WMDs, go and google ("the bomb in my garden") despite what the media will tell you. Its threat to the west which is what was BS.
As regards to ISIS, perhaps, but the same ideology exists in a dozen countries, whos fault is that? Its Islamofascism which is the problem, not our response to it.
Exactly Iraq was zero threat to anyone so the whole war was illegal with no justification.
The problem is destroying/destabilising governments and using jihadi proxies for geopolitical reasons leaving a power vacuum where they can come to power.
Iraq, Libya and Syria kept them in check now they are all over those areas. In Libya and Syria we were on their side. NATO acted as the airforce for the jihadis in Libya and the 'moderate' rebels (besides the Kurds) in Syria were a fantasy.
Taking out Libya was the craziest one as it contributed massively to the flow of migrants to Europe. Remember reading at the time when they were being bombed that Gaddafi was stunned as they were the ones stopping the migrant flow.
Every time the Syrian Army takes an area back from jihadis & ISIS they find weapons and equipment from western countries.
Look at Idlib. It's occupied by an offshoot of Al Qaeda (HTS) yet we are against the Syrians taking it back.
We are on the same side as jihadis.
Last edited:
The only faction that gained from the "chemical attacks" was the US and its proxies on the ground. Assad didn't need it - he was winning. But the moment the USA looks like it might start withdrawing - bang! chemical attack. Immediately followed by the US blocking OPCW inspectors from visiting and blasting the attack site itself with missiles. The OPCW being the organization that John Bolton previously threatened the children of its then director when the organization didn't go along with the narrative of WMD being present in Iraq. You realise the USA has established form for this sort of stuff? Assad is not an idiot, he's a very smart individual and very astute. As the ancient Romans would say - Cui Bono? Any objective assessment of this affair would naturally lean to suspecting the USA first and foremost.
How does that prove the document is genuine?
The Western forces were concentrated on removing them from the main cities of Mosul and Raqqah. What interest is there in focusing effort on mopping up open expanses of meaningless desert? Further, the West doesn't have air superiority over the whole of Syria, due to the Syrian Air Defence. It seems that it is you that is the one who has succumbed to the media agenda of one particular side here.
I'm not saying it was Assad or it wasn't the US but this whole "wouldn't be him because he was winning" doesn't hold up if you understand the situation on the ground. Even now Assad has a lot of work to do and even now still in a perilous situation where he can't afford any significant losses to attrition with a lot of his resources spent. Just because he had won in several areas doesn't mean he could pull out all forces and re-designate them elsewhere either - for instance he'd just retaken large areas in the south and needed to maintain control there to ensure no resurgence, etc. while still needing a lot of force in other parts of the country - there would be huge temptation there to take shortcuts and minimize losses. You talk about objective assessment but only applying it in a one sided manner.