Beheaded by ISIS

Drowned Out

Has anyone reviewed the DOD and State Department documents released to judicial watch? No mention of this here?
Can we all now agree that the U.S. and NATO have always been behind ISIS?

In plain English, from the horses mouth:

Development of the current events into proxy war: with support from Russia, China, and Iran, the regime is controlling the areas of influence along coastal territories (Tartus and Latakia), and is fiercely defending Homs, which is considered the primary transportation route in Syria. On the other hand, opposition forces are trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to the western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders. Western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey are supporting these efforts. [...]

The opposition forces will try to use the Iraqi territory as a safe haven for its forces taking advantage of the sympathy of the Iraqi border population, meanwhile trying to recruit fighters and train them on the Iraqi side, in addition to harboring refugees (Syria).

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia Expansion (Iraq and Iran).

Drowned Out

That's from 2012 btw. Can we drop the moderate rebel charade?

BS44325

Drowned Out said:

Has anyone reviewed the DOD and State Department documents released to judicial watch? No mention of this here?
Can we all now agree that the U.S. and NATO have always been behind ISIS?

In plain English, from the horses mouth:

Development of the current events into proxy war: with support from Russia, China, and Iran, the regime is controlling the areas of influence along coastal territories (Tartus and Latakia), and is fiercely defending Homs, which is considered the primary transportation route in Syria. On the other hand, opposition forces are trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to the western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders. Western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey are supporting these efforts. [...]

The opposition forces will try to use the Iraqi territory as a safe haven for its forces taking advantage of the sympathy of the Iraqi border population, meanwhile trying to recruit fighters and train them on the Iraqi side, in addition to harboring refugees (Syria).

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia Expansion (Iraq and Iran).

I read this yesterday Drowned. Pretty crazy. Assuming it is legit I am wondering when this strategy went into effect? This ties into earlier documents released suggesting the US was "aware" of weapons being shipped from post-gaddafi Libya to the same syrian rebels. It appears that the Obama admin was enabling ISIS to take out Assad and then it spiraled out of control. You would think they would have learned something after funding the jihadists against Russia in the 80's? We all know how well that turned out.

BS44325

Drowned Out said:

That's from 2012 btw. Can we drop the moderate rebel charade?

This is a follow up to that Judicial Watch report Drowned. Rand this morning seems to confirm some of it.

http://youtu.be/tUaqeoDpqsA

badbrains

BS44325 said:

Drowned Out said:

Has anyone reviewed the DOD and State Department documents released to judicial watch? No mention of this here?
Can we all now agree that the U.S. and NATO have always been behind ISIS?

In plain English, from the horses mouth:

Development of the current events into proxy war: with support from Russia, China, and Iran, the regime is controlling the areas of influence along coastal territories (Tartus and Latakia), and is fiercely defending Homs, which is considered the primary transportation route in Syria. On the other hand, opposition forces are trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to the western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders. Western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey are supporting these efforts. [...]

The opposition forces will try to use the Iraqi territory as a safe haven for its forces taking advantage of the sympathy of the Iraqi border population, meanwhile trying to recruit fighters and train them on the Iraqi side, in addition to harboring refugees (Syria).

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia Expansion (Iraq and Iran).

I read this yesterday Drowned. Pretty crazy. Assuming it is legit I am wondering when this strategy went into effect? This ties into earlier documents released suggesting the US was "aware" of weapons being shipped from post-gaddafi Libya to the same syrian rebels. It appears that the Obama admin was enabling ISIS to take out Assad and then it spiraled out of control. You would think they would have learned something after funding the jihadists against Russia in the 80's? We all know how well that turned out.

Obama and McCain, let's not single out one over the other. And I believe, according to this, the U.S. knew in 2012.

http://truthinmedia.com/confirmed-secret-pentagon-report-reveals-us-created-isis-as-a-tool-in-a-proxy-war-against-assad/

Edit-as drowned out stated before, 2012

rr165892

I do like Paul's honesty.Its a bit refreshing.

Every conflict in modern times we arm the enemy of our enemy and worry about the ramifications later.Nothing new there.Like BS referenced above with the arming of the Afganies fighting The Soviets to the "Rebel Freedom Fighters" of today to the nonsense in South America with good ole Ollie.
You would think we learn but we don't .

badbrains

rr165892 said:

I do like Paul's honesty.Its a bit refreshing.

Every conflict in modern times we arm the enemy of our enemy and worry about the ramifications later.Nothing new there.Like BS referenced above with the arming of the Afganies fighting The Soviets to the "Rebel Freedom Fighters" of today to the nonsense in South America with good ole Ollie.
You would think we learn but we don't .

Unless of course this is EXACTLY what they want? Keeps the military industrial complex moving. No enemy, no war means military need is limited.

InHiding80

Nice to see the sane side of Paul speak once in a while.