/polpol/ - Politically Incorrect Discussion

>>9667

Now the year is 2001 and 9/11 attacks occur. The important thing to know about this incident is where the terrorists who committed this act came from. There were 19 men involved in the attack affiliated with al-Qaeda (a Sunni group), 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia (Sunni), and the others were from the United Arab Emirates (2, also Sunni), Egypt (Sunni) and Lebanon (Sunni). Some other important things to note are that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt are allies of the United States. Also another “ally”, Isreal, of the US has over 50 citizens / spies arrested in the US as part of the 9/11 investigation (See the report here about some of them as well as Israeli knowledge of the attacks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbkQddEDPs0 ).

After 9/11 the US government was trying to improve standings with the Islamic community. So they invited, Anwar Al-Awlaki, to the Pentagon for a lunch. Al-Awlaki was one of the US citizens (his 16 year old son the second) that the US military killed with drones in Yemen in 2011. He was later found to have ties to al-Qaeda long after he was supposedly vetted to eat at the Pentagon.

Read more here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/
and here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/politics/targeting-us-citizens/

In 2003 the US decided to invade Iraq again citing reports of weapons of mass destruction, mainly believed to be nuclear. However these weapons were never found, though more chemical weapons were found. There is lots of controversy around why the US really went into Iraq because there were no ties to al-Qaeda before they did. Some like Ron Paul in the video above, say it was because of Iraq trading oil in Euros, and others like the ex-NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Wesley Clack, said we just did it to do something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

What is important is that after The US invaded Iraq an Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda was formed. This branch was referred to as the Islamic State way before ISIS was a common term. The US intelligence agencies refer to it as AQI or al-Qaeda in Iraq. This branch was started by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Zarqawi was not part of al-Qaeda when he became the leader of insurgents within Iraq. It was only after discussion between Zarqawi and Bin Laden that these insurgents were recognized as al-Qaeda. But there was some falling out after Zarqawi (a Sunni) declared war on the Shia Muslims in Iraq in 2005. Zarqawi’s successor was Abu Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi, who took over AQI in 2006 after Zarqawi was killed by a targeted US strike. Abu Rashid al-Baghdadi was supposedly killed in 2010 in Tikrit, though at one point in 2007 he was thought to not be a real person (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/world/africa/18iht-iraq.4.6718200.html) After Rashid’s death Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi took over as leader of AQI/ISI. What is interesting about that is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was actually captive of the US at one point who was released from custody (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/19/jeanine-pirro/foxs-pirro-obama-set-isis-leader-free-2009).

Read more here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/13/islamic-state-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-formerly/?page=all
and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

>>9668

Now that we understand the beginnings of IS let’s skip over to a new theater, Libya. In 2011 the Libyan civil war started (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)). Something to note is that just a few years previous in 2009 Mommar Gadhafi proposed that the African continent start trading resources in the Gold Dinar rather than the US dollar (http://rt.com/news/economy-oil-gold-libya/). This included oil from the country of Libya.

Anyhow in March of 2011 there was international intervention, on the side of the rebels, largely led by the US as well as NATO and others, such as Qatar. What important about this is that the US at this point had been fighting its war on terror against its major enemy, al-Qaeda, for 10 years. However the opposition to Gadhafi was made of some elements of al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html ), yet the US still backed them. This included air support as well as aid and weapons (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/28/source-u-s-knew-weapons-and-aid-were-going-to-al-qaeda-linked-militants-in-libya/). The evidence continues mounting that the west knowingly backed the group, al-Qaeda, they had just spent 10 years previously fighting to make sure it was wiped out. And not be left out were the US’s Qatari allies who the UN also found to have sent weapons: (http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_2013_99.pdf)

Further evidence of the US and the West sending al-Qaeda in Libya weapons can be found here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8391632/Libya-the-West-and-al-Qaeda-on-the-same-side.html
here: http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/01/generals-conclude-obama-backed-al-qaida/
and here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjXbuj7BPI

In September of 2012 in Benghazi, Libya the US embassy that was in place there was attacked by Muslim extremists. The same people who just months before the US and its allies were backing. It turns out after further research by multiple groups that the US was actually using the embassy as a possible CIA outpost to run guns. Not only were guns being sent to Libya, but also to the growing movement with in Syria using Turkey to hand them off.

This is covered in both the Blaze article in the paragraph above as well as this report from the London Review of Books:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

>>9669

Being that Turkey shares a border with Syria, they have a major incentive to maintain influence in the region. At the moment the Syrian government is ran by Bashir Assad and the members of his cabinet who are mostly Shia Muslims, though Syria is mostly populated by Sunni citizens. This is a point of contention between the two countries. This has led to some interesting outcomes. One being the possibility the Turks played a major role in helping the Syrian rebels create the chemical weapons they used (which you can read more about in the London Review of Books Article above). The other is that the Turkish government tried to plan a false flag attack on their country framing the Syrians so that they could invade (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-27/here-youtube-false-flag-attack-syria-clip-erdogan-wanted-banned). This is important to note since Turkey is a NATO nation and because of the NATO treaty if they were attacked other NATO nations would have to join the fight. This would have pulled the US into the war, whose government was all for it, but its citizens fought back against this invasion.

This brings us to the Syrian Civil War and the beginning of wide spread use of the term ISIS in the media. It turns out the Syrian Civil War is very similar to the Libyan Civil War in that there are supposedly two groups of rebels. The first being the moderates known as the Free Syrian Army and second the extremists known as al-Nusra. Al-Nusra is similar to AQI in that it is the branch of al-Qaeda within Syria. It is also the group which is now considered to be part of ISIS. There are disputes that that the two rebel groups have worked together to fight the Syrian army, backed by the Assad government, as well as that they fight each other and the Syrian army. The US decided, like in Libya, to back the ‘moderate rebels’ against the Syrian army, though in doing so it ended up, like in Libya, helping the extremists as well.

The US and its allies have helped the rebels in four ways: training, weapons, funding and aid. First, the US Special Forces stationed in Jordan were tasked with training some of these rebels. It turns out that a Jordanian military officer said that some of the rebels the US troops trained were actually ISIS (http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/06/officials-u-s-trained-isis-at-secret-base-in-jordan/). Second, we have already touched partially on the US sending these rebels weapons through Turkey, but there is even more evidence of this to be the case: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/how-did-islamists-receive-american-weapons-see-the-evidence-from-guided-missile-that-exploded-near-syrian-front-line-9834472.html. Third, funding has come from both the US and its allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar (remember where the 9/11 terrorists came from?). This funding just like the training and weapons has ended up benefiting the extremist rebels, al-Nusra Front, and ISIS. Even the x-NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Wesley Clark, talked about this on CNN: http://youtu.be/QHLqaSZPe98 . An interesting note is that some of this funding that is coming from the US’s Middle Eastern allies has been funneled through Kuwait, the country the US fought to defend in the first Iraq war. Fourth, aid has been given to rebels in Israel by Israeli troops. This may be likened to Israel trying to us the moderate rebels to defend their border, however it is possible that some of this support is going to help ISIS as we see in the three other ways listed (http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/49618-141103-moderate-syrian-rebels-say-they-protect-israeli-border).

>>9670

Read more about weapons ending up in ISIS hands here:
http://www.businessinsider.com/its-not-too-late-to-empower-the-moderate-rebels-of-syria-2014-10

Read more about funding going to ISIS here:
http://rt.com/op-edge/190784-isis-un-threat-obama-coalition/
here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html
and here:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119705/why-does-qatar-support-known-terrorists

Read more about Israel giving aid to Syrian rebels:
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/New-UN-report-reveals-collaboration-between-Israel-and-Syrian-rebels-383926

In conclusion we can see that US Middle East policy has been shaped by one mistake near the end of WWII. This has caused a cascade of terrible Middle East policy. The US has even ended up supporting countries and groups that plague them in future engagements. These include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, and even Israel and Kuwait. Some of these US allies even actively work to support groups, al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, which may become or even are a huge threat to the US. So because of the US’s second invasion into Iraq after 9/11 al-Qaeda was able to get a firm grasp in the region, something that was not possible before. Also, because of the US’s support in both Libya and Syria al-Qaeda backed rebel groups benefited. These actions, as well as direct support from the US allies, is what allowed ISIS to be formed.

>>9667
>>9668
>>9669
>>9670
>>9671

Let me know if anyone has any tips on how to improve this. I tried to use the best sources I could find. The history is really short and succinct because more detail was not required to get to the point. Hopefully this post brings some interesting discussion.

>>9671
I'll be going to sleep soon but I'm just going to throw my two cents in and check up on this thread tomorrow.

The way I see it, the US does this knowing full well that they are supporting extremists not necessarily because they want ISIS and such in power, but to destabilize Syria, Libya, and because they can always crush them later on or corrupt them and get control.

>>9689
Yeah I made no conclusion on to why they do it. I am not sure if it is on purpose or just sheer incompetence.

As Mark Twain said, “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.”

>>9667
Good stuff anon. Long read but worth it.

Quite the dense string of events. I think the current godawful gameplan for the US is to let ISIS take Syria (which they may be close to doing, http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ad_1428443466) and try and just bomb and cripple their burgeoning caliphate from there, maybe letting Iran pick up some of the scrap in exchange for them selling in the petrodollar. Of course, these things rarely go according to plan.

>>9740
Sounds like a good take on it. Its funny to see an Iran agreement after 70 years of this crap all because the US decided to fund another revolution…

Its as if they are incompetent and are always picking up the pieces.

>>9689
I've been thinking that our mistakes in Iraq weren't mistakes at all. Pulling out and leaving it to go to shit, that means these militants can destabilize Iran and Syria.

Then in the "confusion" we keep saying we're bombing ISIS but really bomb Syrian and Iranian forces. All a bunch of unfortunate mistakes…

I remember when we went to war with Iraq and how it was a big deal, everybody knew we were going to war. Now it just keeps expanding with drone strikes everywhere and nobody even wants to hear about it. They can probably keep this going for decades without public interest. I wonder how many more countries are going to be pushed over?

>>9764
Ideally eough for the creation of Greater Israel, I would bet. It looks like financial forces would rather see locals pumping out oil for pennies on the dollar instead of Israel claiming it or constant secular warfare keeping the fluids underground, or sold to more local markets.

>>9765
*enough

>>9765
The Iran deal is what I'm referring to in my second sentence, of course.

>>9764
Its up to like 7 countries now for King Barry isn't it?

Libya,
Yemen,
Afghanistan,
Pakistan,
Iraq,
Somalia,
and Syria (or at least I believe they stuck over the border….I will have to research this)

>>9765
I think the US made a mistake in Iraq letting ISIS grow to what it is now….let alone helping them. So now that the Iranians are on board they can get both a nuclear deal as well as using the Iranians to clean up their mess.

The only odd things is how this plays into Yemen. Because the US got out of Dodge there, stopping the fight against al-Qaeda. Then the small group of Shias, who are backed by Iran, tried to take over the fight against al-Qaeda as well as more territory and started brewing a civil war…then the Sunni Saudis have taken up arms against those Iranian backed Shias….

The Middle East is such a fucked up quagmire oil is barely worth being there.

>>9777
Yeah, that's actually one of the videos in my post above. Kind of crazy to see it coming to life.

>>9774

If you're saying King Barry as if he is somehow uniquely responsible for anything, you haven't been paying attention. It doesn't matter if there is a blue or a red in the Oval Office, it's the same thing. Foreign policy doesn't change. Domestic policy doesn't change. Economic policy doesn't change. The same people who run the government will still run the government. The ability to vote out the blue or the red is like letting your child choose to wear a green or a yellow sweater. They think they did something, you made them wear a sweater. Remember how Obamacare was Romneycare? Yeah. It was going to happen anyway. The coups and invasions? Already on the to do list.

>>9779

It makes more sense when you realize that al-CIAda is used for proxy fighting.

Bump

I follow the narrative but it ends a little early?

May you explain the part where allies bomb ISIS and make them the public scapegoat.

Also, I understand why the US felt it necessary to oust Gaddafi, but what is there beef with Syria?

>>9805
Yeah, yeah…shadow government runs the government…I said that because the guy is an indignant self-righteous asshole.

>>10095
The issue with Syria is that they are Shia and are allies with Russia.

Also the Qataris want to build a pipeline through it since it is a major trade route to Europe. This would cut Russia off from selling gas to Europe:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-04/guest-post-us-going-war-syria-over-natural-gas-pipeline

>>10096
>shadow government

So the question is, when was this installed? mid 20th century?

>>10105

When I say 'shadow government' I am really referring to another term, the 'deep state'. Basically all of the bureaucracies that run the government, and not really the politicians.

Actually just read a good article which articulates it:
http://tucker.liberty.me/2015/04/07/will-rand-paul-improve-libertys-prospects/

>>10105
hegemony of the west was achieved in the 20th century

great britain has been under kike control since the 19th century.

>>9667
Interesting post OP. Good sources too.

>>9764
As OP said, I'd imagine not many, seeing as there isn't a whole lot left.

And there's a possibility that there's a huge amount of idiocy going on, I wouldn't rule that out at all.

>>9667
Does it really take "sources" to figure out that a seemingly nobody group that is making fictitious land claims shouldn't be getting the attention of a world super power?

Bump for educational info

>>9667
ISIS pastebin
http://pastebin.com/Zt0Apic6
..that I've been trying to expand as much as possible.

>>10108
>since the 19th century
Try 17th