Global Vision 2000 CEO Moeen Yaseen on AhlulBayt TV












Shaykh Hamza Yusuf

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf


Shaykh Hamza Yusuf

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf


Ali Al-Ahmed says IS is a key part of Saudi Arabia's strategy in the Middle East -   October 2, 2014

Ali Al-Ahmed is a Saudi scholar and expert on Saudi political affairs including: terrorism, Islamic movements, Wahhabi Islam, Saudi political history, Saudi-American relations, and the al-Saud family history. He is a writer, and public speaker on Saudi political issues. He has been invited to speak by Princeton University, Amnesty International, the Hudson Institute and Meridian International Center.
As journalist he exposed major news stories such as the Pentagon's botched translation of the 9-11 Bin Laden tape, and the video of Daniel Pearl's murder. He has authored reports on Saudi Arabia regarding religious freedom, torture, press freedom, and religious curriculum. A frequent consultant to major world media outlets including CBS News, CNN, PBS, Fox News, Washington Post, and Associated Press. Al-Ahmed has been quoted in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Boston Globe and other newspapers in several languages. He graduated with a B.A. in Journalism and Science and a M.A. in International Finance from Saint Thomas University in Saint Paul, Minnesota.

Is the Islamic State a Tool of the Saudis?

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay.

President Obama's war against the Islamic State--he says it's to degrade and destroy it--has a rather strange set of alliances, and perhaps one of the strangest of all these alliances is the alliance between Saudi Arabia and said the United States. This is a country which, according to Senator Bob Graham, was actually involved in the attacks of 9/11. We'll get more into that in the course of this interview. But it's also a country that is fairly well acknowledged to have playing on both sides of this terrorism question. So just what is the role of Saudi Arabia? What's its relationship with the Islamic State? And just why are they so intent on overthrowing Assad in Syria?

Now joining us is Ali Al-Ahmed. He's the director of the Institute of Gulf Affairs in Washington, D.C. He's a Saudi scholar, an expert on Saudi politics and the politics of the Gulf region, and on terrorism.
Thanks very much for joining us, Ali.

ALI AL-AHMED, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR GULF AFFAIRS: Thank you so much for having me.

JAY: So this is a very complicated time in the Middle East, particularly the war in Syria, the emergence of IS in Iraq.
One thing which I can't understand--I know President Obama says American intelligence underestimated IS, and it's kind of weird because some people have called the success of IS militarily one of the greatest routs of an army in modern history--that's the rout of the Iraqi army. How on earth could the American intelligence not know this is what--IS had this kind of power? But even more to the point, the Saudis must have known. Don't they tell the Americans this sort of thing?

AL-AHMED: Well, the Americans, I think there is a strategic problem here, that the American security apparatus and the American government has relied on unreliable allies, such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and others, who have basically been misleading and giving misinformation to the United States. The Iraqi government is no better. The Iraqi government, because due to pressure from Iran, chose not to have an integral relationship with United States in terms of security arrangements. So the United States really didn't have those reliable allies.
In terms of Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia is interested in misleading the Americans [crosstalk]

JAY: Why?
AL-AHMED: --ISIS and its power, because Saudi Arabia is the godfather of ISIS and other terror groups in Syria and in Iraq. So absolutely they are doing this to deceive. And that's their game from 1930s. They are very good at it.

JAY: Now, when it comes to Syria, my understanding of the situation from other people I've interviewed is that the Saudis thought they could bring in these kinds of extreme Islamist jihadists into the Syrian battle and kind of control them, use them to overthrow Assad, and then, when Assad's gone, they would then be able to contain these forces. First of all, do you think that was there thinking? Had they lost control, then, of forces like IS? Or is what IS doing still part of the Saudi agenda?

AL-AHMED: It is very much part of the Saudi agenda. If you look at what ISIS has been doing, it is really--it is in correlation to the Saudi foreign policy in Iraq and in Syria. The Saudi government want either to dislodge or to weaken the Iraqi and Syrian governments. So ISIS is doing that for them.
I don't know if they have lost control of them. There is no evidence of that yet. But the Saudi and Qatar's goals in Syria was not to remove Assad and replace it with a democratic regime. They wanted to make sure that if Assad is gone, there is not a Democratic, pluralistic, representative government in Syria that gives a model for the region, for the people in the Gulf, that you can have a government that is run by Sunnis and Allawis and Shia and Christians that can work in terms of representation.
The Gulf countries, the golf absolute monarchies, they fear a model where people within a society can work with together, elect their government. And that model really is the most dangerous thing to these absolute monarchies who are based on DNA, not based on people's representation.

JAY: Right. Now, one thing I also find a little peculiar at this moment: I see the Saudis seem to be willing to work with the Iranians to fight IS. There's a--I've seen there's this organization called INEGMA, which is sort of a military think tank that has influence with the Saudis and other military leaders. And I think they often represent a lot of Saudi opinion. And they're far more interested in overthrowing Assad. And they actually--one of the things I was reading said, you know, we can work with the Iranians, but only if they give up support for Assad. But I thought the whole point of the Saudis overthrowing Assad was a way to get at Iran.

AL-AHMED: Absolutely. I think that's part of their game is Iran has a friendly relationship with the Iraqi government and the Syrian government. In fact, it's propping [up] the Syrian government in many ways. So the Saudis' part of the fact preventing an emergence of a model in the Levant, in Syria and Iraq, they want to make sure that the Iranian power is contained, Iranian influence is contained. And they are very obsessed about this. So, yes.
But they are very pragmatic as well. They did this in the '30s when a very similar group as ISIS was led by the Saudis, and they were attacked by the British at the time; a group very much like ISIS attacked Syria and Iraq. And it was Saudi force, purely Saudi force, known as the /?w??n/. And they were later destroyed by the Saudi government itself. And they're very pragmatic. They are driven by one thing, the survival of the monarchy. And anything that it takes to do that, they will do it, including killing their own offsprings and cutting their own tentacles in Syria and Iraq.

JAY: You mean now joining the bombing of IS in Iraq and Syria. I mean, this is this parallel policy: you act like an American ally over here; on the other hand, you helped finance and organize the extremists you're supposedly fighting.

AL-AHMED: Absolutely. Look, everybody knows there is a similar example in Afghanistan, where Pakistan, U.S. ally, receives billions of dollars in U.S. support. In fact, Pakistan has a nuclear bomb that the U.S. didn't really make a fuss about like they are making about the Iranian supposed nuclear program. So the Taliban is supported mainly by Pakistani government, by the Pakistani ISI, which is the security, military security apparatus there. Yet that did not stop Pakistan. The support of the United States to the Pakistani government did not stop the Pakistani government from supporting Taliban in killing American soldiers and other Western and, of course, Afghani people. So this is a situation where the U.S. government has really--have not been successful in terms of its choices of allies.
The Saudis, their best position, in their eyes, is to be in their coalition so they are not seen as openly against the United States and supporting ISIS. They might be a target themselves if they were not part of the coalition. So they made the rational, pragmatic choice.

JAY: Now, they IS, at least the rhetoric of IS, is also targeting the Saudi regime. They think of them, they call them blasphemers, and working with the Americans is in theory one of the highest crimes one could commit in the eyes of an IS. You're suggesting that's more rhetoric than it is any real intent to try to foment some kind of uprising within Saudi Arabia.

AL-AHMED: Absolutely. And the Saudi voices here, and their agents, I would call them, we always use--IS is threat Saudi Arabia. I say, well, that's in rhetoric, yes. But where are the evidence? We don't have any evidence of any attacks. We have not seen any attack. In fact, the ISIS or IS has been on the Saudi-Iraqi border. They have not attempted to infiltrate or bomb or kill or do anything. So it's a lot of smoke screen in my opinion. We have not seen evidence of that.
It doesn't mean that we will not see some small attacks here or there. Yes, we might. But that is used as part of the deception process that we see used in the Middle East, not only in Saudi Arabia. There are other countries like Egypt that use attacks on Christians, launched attacks on Christians and blamed it on Muslim extremists. So that is not new in the region [crosstalk] cover and smoke screen.
JAY: Right. In the beginning of the interview you talked about the Saudis misleading the Americans. And I guess you're suggesting they didn't let the Americans--they didn't give the Americans legitimate intelligence on just how strong IS was becoming. But how could the Americans not have better intelligence on their own? They've been in this region for years now.

AL-AHMED: I think there is a failure here, the failure of system. You know, when you have American officials and they have not been scrutinized running the show--. I don't want to mention names here, but we had an American, the person who was running, during the Bush administration, the terror file. She is basically a Saudi mouthpiece. If you have close relationship between these people and the Saudi monarchy getting contracts after they leave--. The former head of the FBI now is on the Saudi docket. So these things, these relationship, these personal financial relationships really undermines the ability of U.S. officials who are running the intelligence and running these files to make the right decisions, because personal interest really is the first motivator for human beings. So financial gains become, sometimes, to some people, much more important than the interests and the safety of the United States. And that's why when you talk about Senator Graham saying that the Saudi government is involved somehow in September 11, we have not seen any American effort in terms of bringing Saudi Arabia to account, or even publicly saying, you have to clean house. And they have not done that. [crosstalk]

JAY: Yeah. Well, I had asked this off-camera, and I'll pursue it a bit further. Yeah. We interviewed Senator Bob Graham. We did a series of interviews with him. And he specifically says that the Saudi government, not some rogue princes, as sometimes is suggested, was directly involved in facilitating and helping to finance the 9/11 attacks. There's 28 pages of redacted--28 redacted pages in the joint congressional 9/11 report, and we know from various sources, including the L.A. times and New York Times, who interviewed people who saw those pages, that in those pages it specifically names names of Saudi officials and so on. And I asked Bob Graham directly whether Prince Bandar was involved, and he essentially said yes. Bandar was the Saudi ambassador to the United States at that time and known as Bandar Bush, he was so close to the Bush family. So, I mean, the American authorities know the role of the Saudis in all of this, and yet they're treated like a normal ally. What is going on here other than what you suggest, individuals get money shoved up you know what? But still there's something more than that.

AL-AHMED: I think if you--in fact, we did--I read an article in the Politico magazine basically addressing this issue and saying that why is Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries basically are immune from U.S. criticism despite their horrible human rights record, despite the fact they support terrorism that has killed many Americans. It's very simple, really. It's not complicated if I compare China to Saudi Arabia.
The Chinese own $1.3 trillion of U.S. debt. They are greater, a much more powerful nation. And they sell the U.S. over $450 billion of goods every year compared to the Saudi $55 billion of oil and oil products every year. Yet the Chinese are a target of U.S. sanctions, of criticism, openly, and the U.S. harbors a lot of Chinese dissidents. They don't do that with the Saudi monarchy.
So what is the difference? What's the variance here? It's the fact that the Saudi government and Gulf countries in general are investing in buying opinions and loyalties within Washington, D.C. And we have details of that, long details, in terms of think tanks, universities, and former officials. Current officials usually are given the nod that when you leave your office you have a good contract coming up. And that is, unfortunately, the case.
And I think we have to--that's why Congress must have very strong hearings on this to see why an absolute monarchy is able to influence not only U.S. officials, but academic and think tanks in the United States.

JAY: And also enormous amounts of arm purchases. I think it's in the, what, fifty, sixty billion dollars of arm purchases.


JAY: So just one final question. If we go back to Syria because it's one of the linchpins of this whole issue with IS, and the logic being that if there are successful military operations against IS in Iraq, then IS simply goes back into Syria, and much of IS is--you know, Syria is a base for IS operations in Iraq. And so they're talking about arming supposed moderate forces and so on, which--the whole policy seems kind of in a debacle. The issue of Assad in all of this is critical. The Saudis still seem intent that Assad has to fall. But if what they're afraid of is democratization of Syria, why do they care if Assad stays?

AL-AHMED: Oh, they don't care if Assad stays. They want Assad to say, Iran is my enemy, and basically blocks Iran's access to the Mediterranean, and to stop supporting Hezbollah, and Hezbollah would be weakened. And that is their strategic or number-one goal. Their number-two goal is to ensure that there is no modern secular democratic, semi-Democratic, even, state north of Saudi Arabia, either in Iraq or Syria. So that is their main goal is to prevent a modern state, a model that challenges their model of--a medieval model.

JAY: And if IS more or less an instrument of the Saudis, how the heck can the American intelligence and political leaders not get this?

AL-AHMED: I think that some of them know it. They choose to ignore it. This is the same case with Qatar, with Kuwait. We know very well that these things are so public sometimes it's embarrassing, the fact that the Qataris are supporting al-Nusra, which is now threatening the United States as well, yet the Americans, Mr. Kerry, has refused to say anything about it, as if Qatar is a superpower. Why is Qatar not being able to--why is not the U.S. able to criticize Qatar or Bahrain? Because, like, again, it has to do with that variance I talked about is the money that's spent in think tanks and foundations, especially to former U.S. presidents and other U.S. officials. That is really the difference that makes the difference is that a lot of money comes in from these countries to [crosstalk]

JAY: Right. But there must also be a convergence of interests. It's not like the United States wants popular democracy all across the Middle East. I mean the whole--U.S. policy has always been--.

AL-AHMED: They have not--the U.S. has no [crosstalk] stated in support of democracy. I wrote an article in The New York Times saying that we haven't heard the U.S. government talk about its support for--not democracy--for a constitutional monarchy in Bahrain, or for resignation of the prime minister in Bahrain who's been there for 44 years. So the U.S., you know, publicly, the policy is to support absolute monarchies in the Gulf. They have not said anything beside that. They have not said, we would like to see the people in the Gulf, in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Qatar, to have a greater role in their government. We have not heard that. No. You're right.

JAY: Right. Alright. Thanks very much for joining us.

AL-AHMED: Thank you so much.

JAY: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

Tahir Mustafa
October, 2014

The US, its European allies and puppet Arabian regimes have not given up on overthrowing Bashar al Asad’s government in Syria. The ‘fight’ against takfiris is merely a pretext.

Few observers of the Muslim East scene are convinced that President Barack Obama’s chest thumping is about confronting the takfiris in Iraq and Syria (he insists on calling the group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), more on this later). It is essentially meant to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Asad of Syria.

In his televised address on September 10, he insisted the US would go after the terrorists whether in Iraq or Syria. “I will not hesitate to take action against [ISIL] in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven,” Obama thundered.

He framed the alleged threat from ISIL in such a way as to scare the American people into believing that the takfiris are coming after them. The corporate media has been a willing accomplice forcing the American people by deliberate lies to believe that there are takfiri sleeper cells in America! The media is doing what it is supposed to do: work on behalf of the warlords and the military-industrial-bankers complex to advance its nefarious agenda.

At the beginning of August, only 9% of Americans were in favour of military action against the takfiris, seeing them as the bad guys but out there, far away from the US. Since the airing of the gruesome beheading videos, 76% of Americans now approve of military action.  

The cabal of US warmongers led by the neocons as well as the Zionist-dominated Congress welcomed Obama’s declaration of war. On September 17, the House of Representatives approved by 273 to 156 a bill authorizing $500 million that Obama sought to train “moderate [Syrian] rebels” to overthrow al-Asad’s government in Syria. From being branded a “wimp” because he refused to launch a war even after the chemical gas attack in Ghouta in August 2013 that was later traced to Saudi-backed rebels, Obama has won praise from some of the warlords.

Others are still unhappy. They want Obama not only to start bombing right away but also send the troops. John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN is one of the leading crusaders of the cabal. In an op-ed piece in the New York Post on September 16, he wrote, “They [the takfiris] are not deterred by President Obama’s rhetoric or threats of future action against them.” What did he propose Obama should do? “It’s time to confront the unambiguous reality that destroying ISIS — which even Obama says is (ultimately) his goal — urgently requires American combat troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria. And the time is right now, not years from now. No amount of wishful thinking or political cowardice can change the fact we are at war, a one-syllable word even the White House now uses.”

The warlord sporting a thick moustache was outdone by the hawkish Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona. On September 16, he grilled Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey about what they would do if Syrian Air Defence batteries attacked US aircraft over Syrian territory. Neither wanted to be drawn into that hypothetical debate but Dempsey said if the air strikes failed to achieve the result Obama had proposed — “degrade and destroy” — he would recommend the use of ground troops. This is what most people feel is the actual plan but is to be implemented in stages in order not to cause alarm among Americans. It is like boiling the frog slowly!

The next day, Obama contradicted his military chief during a visit to MacDill Air Force base in Florida. He said there was no plan to use ground forces. He is aware of the fact that after the US experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American people do not want any more wars, especially ones that might involve deploying US troops and would result in casualties. This of course is not what the military-industrial-bankers cartel wants; they are addicted to perpetual war.

To drum up support from countries in the region in order to give it local flavour, Secretary of State of John Kerry met ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC — comprising Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE), Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon in Jeddah on September 11. Syria, which is to be subjected to America’s aerial assault, was not invited. It was not deemed necessary to seek its consent to carry out strikes on its territory.

Before Obama’s September 10 address, he spoke to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia who gave his blessings to the plan. The following day, Kerry extracted a promise from Abdullah at the Jeddah meeting that the Kingdom would provide bases for the US to train “moderate rebels” to overthrow al-Asad’s government. Those familiar with ground realities did not miss the irony: the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey have been the principal supporters of the takfiris at the behest of the US. Riyadh and Doha have provided funding and arms (American manufactured Humvees and Ukrainian weapons purchased by the Saudis are being used by the takfiris) while Turkey has acted as a conduit for the transfer of mercenaries from Central Asia, Afghanistan, North Africa and beyond.  

A statement at the conclusion of the Jeddah meeting said that “the participating states agreed to do their share in the comprehensive fight” against ISIL. Only Turkey and Egypt expressed reservations. Turkey said it would not allow its military bases to be used for US air strikes citing the safety of 46 Turkish diplomats that were kidnapped by the takfiris when they stormed Mosul on June 11 (they were released on September 20 under circumstances that have remained unexplained so far). Egypt called for a UN Security Council resolution — this is also Russia’s position — before resorting to the use of force but more importantly, Cairo’s military rulers want the fight to be broadened to include militants fighting their regime.

The US, currently serving as rotating president of the UN Security Council, presented a draft resolution on September 19. Under this, it sought international approval for attacking ISIL/ISIS. Even Russia and China may go along with this in what Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said would be a repeat of the mistake made in approving Security Council resolution no. 1973 against Libya. While called a “no-fly” resolution, it ended up being a wholesale bombing and destruction of Libya ultimately resulting in the overthrow and public lynching of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi.

The Syrian government and media accurately read the situation. Even before Obama’s speech, Syrian media on September 9 accused Arabian regimes of giving Washington prior agreement for military action in Syria. Following the Jeddah meeting, Syria’s National Reconciliation Minister Ali Haidar said that US air strikes on Syrian territory without permission from Damascus would be an act of “aggression” on his country. “Any action of any kind without the consent of the Syrian government is an aggression against Syria,” Haidar told reporters in Damascus. He said the Syrian government was willing to cooperate in this effort but must be consulted.

“There must be cooperation with Syria and coordination with Syria and there must be a Syrian approval of any action whether it is military or not,” Haidar added. He also referred to international law saying that any action must be with the consent of the Syrian government. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem had issued a similar warning on August 24. This occurred against the backdrop of a Saudi-convened meeting in Jeddah attended by ministers from Egypt, Jordan, the UAE and Qatar on August 24. The following day, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Amir Abdullahian visited Saudi Arabia for discussions with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal. After their meeting, the two said they would like to open a new chapter in bilateral relations that have been soured as a result of Saudi hostility toward the Islamic Republic.

Russia and the Islamic Republic of Iran have expressed grave concern over the escalating war rhetoric and American unilateralism. China also called for respect of Syria’s sovereignty. Russia said a Security Council resolution was necessary if the US was going to take military action while Tehran described the US moves as being shrouded in “ambiguity.” Will Moscow now acquiesce in the US-sponsored Security Council resolution?

The ground work for the planned attack on Iraq and Syria was laid at the Newport (Wales) NATO meeting on September 5–6. Ten NATO countries plus officials from Ukraine met to discuss the situation in Ukraine, and Iraq and Syria. Countries such as Canada and Australia pledged various levels of support. On September 15, there was a meeting of regional as well as NATO member countries (30 in all) in Paris aimed at shoring up additional support for the war that is to be waged primarily against Syria under the cover of fighting the threat from takfiris that have indulged in gruesome killings by beheading captives. There are reports that they hold at least 20 Western hostages.

Not everyone in Paris was in agreement with what the Americans proposed. The Iraqi President Fouad Masoum said Iran should have been invited to the conference. Lebanon’s Foreign Minister Gebran Basil, mindful of the political realities in his country, said that Lebanon would not join any axis and that his government has not given the Americans any mandate to carry out strikes against ISIS in Lebanon.

Basil is aware that the Islamic resistance movement Hizbullah is a major political force in the country. Without its consent, no Lebanese government can undertake major policy decisions and while the US may be targeting the takfiris who are the enemies of Hizbullah, the resistance movement does not wish to join the US crusade. Both Hizbullah and Iran clearly see that the choice is not between fighting the takfiris or having foreign troops in the region. The Rahbar, Imam Seyyed Ali Khamenei had already ruled out any cooperation when the Americans asked for it. Kerry then offered a new proposal on September 17: the US would be willing to open a “back channel” communication with Iran!

Obama has given in to neocon pressure and his smooth talking has got him only so far. He has used the beheading of the two American journalists — James Foley and Steven Sotloff — to justify war. Only a few weeks earlier, he had dismissed the talk of war saying the takfiris (ISIS) were not a major threat and that war was not an option. Besides, he admitted, he had no clear plans for dealing with them.

Videos uploaded on the internet have been used to shock the American people into supporting the war. While some reports have questioned the authenticity of such videos — that is, the actual beheadings on camera (see the British daily, The Telegraph, August 25) — there is no doubt that these people were killed. The takfiris have used such gruesome tactics to instil fear. Other commentators have suggested that the takfiris are working for the US and carry out acts that would advance America’s war agenda.

The French journalist Thierry Meyssan in a blog on Voltairenet (September 1) revealed that the head of the takfiri group ISIL/ISIS is in fact an American agent. In support of his claim, Meyssan published a photograph from May 2013 in which the leader of the takfiris, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (real name Ali Ibrahim al-Badri al-Samarai) met Senator McCain when the latter sneaked illegally from Turkey into Syria. Present at the meeting was also Salim Idriss, then head of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) that has since disintegrated under the takfiri onslaught.

The question of why Obama referred to the takfiri group by the acronym ISIL that stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, must also be addressed. By referring to the Levant, Obama seems to leave open the possibility that the Americans will be involved in wars in the broader region than simply Iraq and Syria. Further, despite its name, the group has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam; they are a bunch of murderous thugs that indulge in gruesome acts of beheadings to terrorize people.

What is worthy of note is that while they have murdered hundreds if not thousands of innocent people in Syria and Iraq, including beheadings, these have evoked little concern from the US, the West in general and their sponsors in the Muslim East, primarily Saudi Arabia. But when the terrorists uploaded videos about the beheadings of American journalists and a British aid worker, almost instantly the entire world was mobilized against them. This has led some commentators to speculate that the airing of such videos in fact served America’s purpose. They helped convince the American people that war against this group was a necessity.

The American prescription for dealing with the takfiris borders on the bizarre. The US is to train “moderate rebels” on bases in Saudi Arabia. But this is precisely what the archaic kingdom has been doing all along: it has financed and armed these murderous thugs and then unleashed them on Syria. Even the Americans have been doing precisely this in Jordan where more than 200 Special Forces have been training these mass murderers since 2012.

The London (UK)-based research organization, Conflict Armament Research (CAR) revealed in a report on September 8 that the takfiri terrorists appear to be using weapons that were supplied by the US to Saudi Arabia. How did they come into possession of such weapons? The Saudis insist they had given them to the “moderate rebels” in Syria.  The “moderate rebels” have turned out to be not so moderate at all or, are they working to a script that is being hidden from the general public?

The US-Saudi position borders on the scandalous. On September 20, it was reported that the takfiris were fleeing their base in Mosul fearing US air strikes. It seems they are being pushed back into Syria for the fight against the government there. The US plan is after all about overthrowing the government in Syria. The takfiris are merely pawns in this vile game.
Joachim Hagopian

Let’s be perfectly clear. The United States is not actually at war with ISIS. As Global Research director, economist and author Michel Chossudovsky plainly points out recently, Obama is simply waging “a fake war” against the Islamic State forces, putting on another propaganda show for mainstream media to keep his flock of American sheeple asleep in echo-chambered darkness. With a mere cursory review of recent historical events, one can readily realize that virtually everything Big Government tells us is happening in the world, you can bet is a boldface lie.

For over three and a half decades the US has been funding mostly Saudi stooges to do its dirty bidding in proxy wars around the world, beginning in Afghanistan in the 1980’s to fight the Soviets with the mujahedeen-turned al Qaeda that later would mutate into ISIS. Reagan and Bush senior gave Osama bin Laden his first terrorist gig. Our mercenary “Islamic extremists” for-hire were then on the CIA payroll employed in the Balkans during the 1990’s to kill fellow Moslem Serbs in Kosovo and Bosnia. For a long time now Washington’s been relying on the royal Saudi family as its chief headhunters supplying the United States with as needed terrorists on demand in order to wage its geopolitics chessboard game of global hegemony, otherwise known by the central banking cabal as global “Theft-R-Us.”

The Bush crime family were in bed with the bin Ladens long before 9/11 when that very morning George H W Bush on behalf of his Carlyle Group was wining and dining together with Osama’s brother at the posh DC Ritz Carlton while 19 box cutting Saudi stooges were acting as the neocon’s hired guns allegedly committing the greatest atrocity ever perpetrated on US soil in the history of this nation. And in the 9/11 immediate aftermath while only birds were flying the not-so-friendly skies above America, there was but one exception and that was the Air Force escort given the bin Ladens flying safely back home to their “Terrorists-R-Us” mecca called Saudi Arabia. On 9/11 the Zionist Israeli Mossad, Saudi intelligence and the Bush-Cheney neocons were busily pulling the trigger murdering near 3000 Americans in cold blood as the most deadly, most heinous crime in US history. If you’re awake enough to recognize this ugly truth as cold hard fact, then it’s certainly not a stretch to see the truth behind this latest US created hoax called ISIS.

Renowned investigative journalist and author Seymour Hersh astutely saw the writing on the wall way back in 2006 (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

The US Empire along with its international partner-in-crime Israel has allowed and encouraged Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to be the primary financiers of al Qaeda turned ISIS. Even Vice President Joe Biden last year said the same. If Empire wanted to truly destroy the entire Islamic extremist movement in the Middle East it could have applied its global superpower pressure on its allied Gulf State nations to stop funding the ISIS jihadists. But that has never happened for the simple reason that Israel, those same Arab allies and the United States want a convenient “bad guy” enemy in the Middle East and North Africa, hiding the fact that al Qaeda-ISIS for decades has been its mercenary ally on the ground in more recent years in the Golan Heights, Libya, Iraq and Syria.

As recently as a month ago it was reported that an Islamic State operative claimed that funding for ISIS had been funneled through the US. Of course another “staunch” US-NATO ally Turkey has historically allowed its territory to be a safe staging ground as well as a training area for ISIS. It additionally allows jihadist leaders to move freely in and out of Syria through Turkey. Along with Israel and all of US Empire’s Moslem nation states as our strategic friends in the Middle East, together they have been arming, financing and training al Qaeda/ISIS to do its double bidding, fighting enemies like Gaddafi in Libya and Assad in Syria while also posing as global terrorist boogie men threatening the security of the entire world. Again, Washington cannot continue to double speak its lies from both sides of its mouth and then expect to continue having it both ways and expect the world to still be buying it.

A breaking story that’s creating an even larger crack in the wall of the US false narrative is the revelation that Iraqi counterterrorism forces just arrested four US-Israeli military advisors assisting (i.e., aiding and abetting) the ISIS enemy, three of whom hold duel citizenships from both Israel and America. This latest piece of evidence arrives on the heels of a Sputnik article from a couple weeks ago quoting American historian Webster Tarpley saying that “the United States created the Islamic State and uses jihadists as its secret army to destabilize the Middle East.” The historian also supported claims that the ISIS has in large part been financed by the Saudi royal family. Interviewed on Press TV the critic of US foreign policy asked why NATO ally Turkey bordering both Iraq and Syria where the Islamic State jihadists continue to terrorize, why can’t Turkey simply use its larger, vastly superior army to go in and defeat the much smaller ISIS, especially if the US and NATO were serious about destroying their alleged enemy. Again, if ISIS is the enemy, why did the US recently launch an air strike on Assad’s forces that were in process of defeating ISIS? The reason is all too obvious, the bombing was meant to afflict damage to stop Assad’s forces from beating back ISIS that the US is clearly protecting.

Finally, Tarpley reaffirmed what many others have been saying that chicken hawk Senator John McCain is actual buddies with ISIS kingpin Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Of course photos abound of his frequent “secret” meetings with ISIS leadership illegally conducted inside Syria. This confirmed fact provides yet one more obvious link between the high powered criminal operative posing as US senator and the so called enemy of the “free world” ISIS.

Recall that iconic photo from June last year of American supplied trucks traveling unimpeded in the ISIS convoy kicking up dust in the Iraqi desert fresh from the Syrian battlefields heading south towards Baghdad. It was no accident that they were equipped with an enormous fleet of brand new Toyota trucks and armed with rockets, artillery and Stinger missiles all furnished by US Empire. Nor was it an accident that the Iraqi Army simply did an about face and ran, with orders undoubtedly coming from somewhere high above in the American Empire. The Islamic State forces were allowed to seize possession of 2500 armored troop carriers, over 1000 Humvees and several dozen US battlefield tanks all paid for by US tax dollars. This entire spectacle was permitted as ISIS without any resistance then took control of Mosul the second largest city in Iraq including a half billion dollars robbing a bank. Throughout this process, it was definitely no accident that the United States allowed the Islamic State forces to invade Iraq as with advanced US airpower it could have within a couple hours easily carpet bombed and totally eliminated ISIS since the Islamic State possessed no anti-aircraft weapons. And even now with the hi-tech wizardry of satellites, lasers, nanotechnology and advanced cyber-warfare, the US and allied intelligence has the means of accurately locating and with far superior firepower totally eradicating ISIS if the will to do so actually existed. But the fact is there is no desire to kill the phantom enemy when in fact it’s the friend of the traitors in charge of the US government who drive the Empire’s global war policy.

Washington’s objective last year was to purposely unleash on already ravaged Iraq the latest US-made, al Qaeda morphed into the Islamic monster-on-steroids to further destabilize the Middle East, seek a regime change to replace the weak, corrupt, Sunni persecuting Maliki government in Baghdad and ‘balkanize” Iraq into three separate, powerless, divisive sections in similar vein of how the West tore apart and dissected Yugoslavia into thirteen ineffectual pieces. The globalist pattern of bank cabal loans drowning nations into quicksand debt and transnationals and US Empire posts predatorily moving in as permanent fixtures always replace what was previously a far better off sovereign nation wherever King Midas-in-reverse targets to spreads its Empire disease of failed-state cancer. After Yugoslavia came Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine. It goes on and on all over the globe. The all too familiar divide and conquer strategy never fails as the US Empire/NWO agenda. But the biggest reason ISIS was permitted to enter and begin wreaking havoc in Iraq last June was for the Empire to re-establish its permanent military bases in the country that Maliki had refused Washington after its December 2011 pullout.

With 2300 current US troops (and rising up to 3000 per Obama’s authorization) once again deployed back on the ground in Iraq acting as so called advisors, Iraq is now the centerpiece of US military presence in the Middle East region. Before a doubting House Armed Services Committee last Tuesday, CENTCOM Commander General Lloyd Austin defended Obama’s policyinsisting that ISIS can be defeated without use of heavy ground forces, feebly claiming that they’re on the run because his commander-in-chief’s air strike campaign is actually working. How many times before have we heard generals’ glowing reports to Congress turn out to be lies?

As far as PR goes, it appears the lies and propaganda are once again working. With help from the steady stream of another beheading-of-the week posted like clockwork on Youtube for all the world to shockingly see, not unlike when traffic slows down to look for bloodied car victims mangled on the highway. Apparently this thinly veiled strategy is proving successful again on the worked over, dumbed down, short attention-spanned American population. According to a poll released just a few days ago, 62% of Americans want more GI boots on the ground in Iraq to fight the latest made-by-America enemy for Iraq War III. Incredibly only 39% believe that more troops on the ground would risk another long, protracted war. Again, short attention spans are doomed to keep repeating history as in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

This polling propaganda disinformation ploy fits perfectly with prior statements made a few months ago by America’s top commander General Martin Dempsey that the US military presence in both Iraq and Syria must be a long term commitment as the necessary American sacrifice required to effectively take out ISIS. With US leaders laying the PR groundwork for more Empire occupations worldwide, of course it’s no accident that it conveniently fits in with the Empire’s agenda to wage its war of terror on a forever basis. Efforts by Washington to “prep” Americans for these “inevitable,” open-ended wars around the globe are designed to condition them into passive acceptance of lower intensity, “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” conflicts specifically to minimize and silence citizens from ever actively opposing yet more human slaughter caused by more US state sponsored terrorism in the form of unending imperialistic wars.

Every one of these “current events” have been carefully planned, coordinated, timed and staged for mass public consumption, none more so than those beheadings of US and British journalists, aid workers and Middle Eastern Christians along with the desecration of ancient Iraqi history with dozens of destroyed museums, churches and shrines. Obama and the Empire want us all to be thoroughly horrified and disgusted so we fear and hate the latest designated Islamic enemy. Hating your enemy to the point of viewing them as the lowest of the lowest, sub-human animal is an old psyops brainwashing trick successfully employed in every single war from the dawn of violent man. It effectively dehumanizes the enemy while desensitizing the killing soldier. For over a year now we’ve seen this same MSM game being relentlessly waged to falsely demonize Putin. The sinister, warped minds of the divide and conquer strategists from the ruling class elite don’t mind the resultant hating of Moslems around the world either. That’s all by diabolical design too.

If only six organizations control the entire planet’s mass media outlet that feeds the masses their daily lies like their daily bread, another winning bet would be that in a heartbeat they could also effectively shut down the internet pipeline that showcases ISIS horror show theatrics on the global stage. But by design, they are willingly, cunningly disseminated for worldwide mass consumption.

In fact the only consistent group that’s even been able to militarily hold their own and actually challenge ISIS, the Kurds, are watching UK ship heavy arms to the same losing team the Iraqi army that ran away from defending Mosul. The last time the West gave them weapons and supplies, they handed them right over to ISIS.

In a recent Guardian article, a Kurdish captain said that the Kurds offered to even buy the second hand weapons from the British used in Afghanistan. But because the West is afraid the heavy arms might empower Kurdish nationalism into demanding their own sovereign nation for the first time in history, the US wants to ensure that Iraq stays as one nation after implanting its latest Baghdad puppet regime. The fiercely independent Kurds are feared if they were granted autonomy that they might refuse to allow their homeland to be raped and plundered by the US unlike the corrupt current Iraqi government. The Kurdish fighters could sorely use the bigger guns as they plan to launch an offensive in April or May to take back Mosul from ISIS. But when permitting an ancient ethnic group its proper due by granting political autonomy risks interfering with the Empire’s rabid exploitation of another oil-rich nation, all bets are off in doing the right thing.

The mounting evidence is stacking up daily to unequivocally prove beyond any question of a doubt that ISIS is in fact a US mercenary ally and not the treasonous feds’ enemy at all. From mid-August 2014 to mid-January 2015 using the most sophisticated fighter jets known to man, the US Air Force and its 19 coalition allies have flown more than 16,000 air strikes over Iraq and Syria ostensibly to “root out” ISIS once and for all. Yet all this Empire aggression has nothing to show for its wasted phony efforts as far as inflicting any real damage on the so called ISIS enemy. Labeled a “soft counterterrorism operation,” a prominent Council on Foreign Relations member recently characterized Obama’s scheme as too weak and ineffectual, and like a true CFR chicken hawk, he strongly advocates more bombs, more advisers and special operations forces deployed on the ground.

But the records show that all those air strikes are purposely not hitting ISIS forces because they are not the actual target. Many air strike missions from both the US Air Force as well as Israeli jets have been designed to destroy extensive infrastructure inside Syria that hurts the Syrian people, causing many innocent civilian casualties, while not harming ISIS at all. This in turn ensures more ISIS recruits for America’s forever war on terror. Repeatedly oil refineries, pipelines and grain storage silos have also been prime targets damaged and destroyed by the West. Because in 2013 Obama’s false flag claim that Assad’s army was responsible for the chemical weapons attack was thwarted by strong worldwide opposition and Putin’s success brokering the deal that had Assad turning over his chemical weapons, a mere year later ISIS conveniently provided Obama’s deceitful excuse to move forward with his air offensive on Syria after all.

Finally, on numerous occasions the US was caught red-handed flying arms and supply drops to the Islamic jihadists on the ground. According to Iraqi intelligence sources, US planes have engaged regularly in air drops of food and weapons to ISIS. These sighting began to be observed after one load was “accidentally” dropped last October into so called enemy hands supposedly meant to go to the Kurdish fighters. Realizing the US has betrayed them, as of late Iraqi security forces have been shooting down US and British aircraft engaged in providing supplies and arms to their ISIS enemy. This is perhaps the most incriminating evidence yet in exposing the truth that ISIS is being supported, supplied and protected by the US Empire more than even the Iraqi government forces the US claims to be assisting in this phony war against the militant Islamic jihadists.

Clearly the unfolding daily events and developments in both Iraq and Syria overwhelmingly indict the United States as even more of “the bad guy” than the supposed ISIS terrorists. Recently the US was caught financing ISIS and has all along supported Arab allies that knowingly fund Islamic extremism. During the six months since Obama vowed to go after them and “root them out,” countless times the US and allies have maintained the so called enemy’s supply line with regularly scheduled air drops. Meanwhile, in both Syria and Iraq after a half year of alleged bombing, ISIS forces are reported to be stronger than ever. The air strikes have not been hitting jihadist targets because the American and coalition forces’ actual targets in Syria have been vital infrastructure and civilians that are clearly attacks on Assad. All of this irrefutable evidence piling up is backfiring on the American Empire. The world is now learning just how devious, diabolical and desperate the warmongering, pro-Zionist powerbrokers who are the war criminals controlling the US rogue government really are. Their evil lies are unraveling their demonic agenda as the truth cannot be stopped.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now concentrates on his writing and has a blog site at http://empireexposed. blogspot. com/.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)