Isis

Iranian – Funded Terrorist Group (ISIS) Attacks Iranian Parliament 

ISIS raids Iranian parliament, and the US media and Saudi Arabia tries to sell Americans on Iran being the world’s largest supporter of terror. 

Anyone with a Wikipedia-level understanding of the Middle East knows that ISIS and Iran are enemies, and the US has been fighting WITH Iran in Iraq against ISIS.
Sorry FOX News, John McCain and Bill Kristol. 

Advertisements

The Attacks Won’t Stop. Pt. 2 – Blowback Edition 

The attacks won’t stop by changing profile photos and wishing it away. Realize your politicians have signed you up for this heartache by violently occupying the Middle East for over a century.

The response has been the growth of understandable revenge-seeking over the deaths of their children & families, and lose of their society, homes and country.
The outlet that is offered to radical religious terrorism which help fill that void and give purpose to their revenge.
The attacks won’t stop just because us Westerners want them too. Face the facts that your low price gas and ability to travel freely is built off the backbone of a violent imperialism.
So either put your foot down and refuse to go along with it anymore. Or don’t, and continue to pretend the “mean bad people” will eventually stop after enough bombs are dropped on their world.

The Reason Attacks Like London Will Not End Anytime Soon – 33 Civilians Dead in US Airstrike in Syira

My reaction to the attack in London today is sure to come with the comments I usually receive: “How can you blame the victim?!” “This is about their religion!” “So you are blaming the US (Britain)!?” Of course, that is not what I am doing. I have become a bit numb to the complete horror of these attacks. I do go directly to the idea of “Blowback” that was introduced by the CIA, and further introduced to me by Ron Paul.

While the mainstream media and extreme left will cover this attack as if it is an irrational attack by an individual from a small minority of an otherwise peaceful culture or religion, the radical viewpoint on this that will come both from the right and left will be to directly attribute this attack to he religion of Islam.

I reject both of these as stated earlier. As I wrote in my previous post, the rational explanation of why these types of attacks take place can be found in the daily news coming out of the Middle East.

I went over to Antiwar.com and read the following article posted today: “US Airstrike Kills 33 Civilians Sheltering in Syrian School“. The article covers the most recent idiotic military operation by the US in Syria. Ready for this? The US airdropped Kurdish fighters into ISIS-controlled Raqqa in an attempt to “liberate” the city. To clear the are for the airdrop, the US first provided airstrikes. One airstrike struck a school housing refugees, killing 33 people according to The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

The indifference in which we treat these massacres carried out by our governments lead to the lashing out of the violently oppressed. I won’t get into who the refugee crisis in Europe is directly related to the destruction of the refugees’ countries. A six year old can figure that out on their own.

On the surface this is a tragedy in its own right. But the response and reaction by the US military, media and Westerners alike is the real story. Responsibility is not taken for the airstrike, even denial is in the cards. CNN, FOX or MSNBC won’t touch this story.

Because of this, the everyday Westerner won’t have any reaction. There will be no hashtags or profile picture changes.

They will say that this is “the price of empire” or that this is just what happens in that part of world. Well, I can sadly say that attacks like the one in London is the real price of empire, and it too is just what happens in THAT part of the world.

Thomas Friedman Asks, Why Not Arm ISIS?

Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist who has more interest in selling the American people on Israeli policy than keeping them safe, suggested that we discuss the following question. Why should America fight another war for Iran in Iraq?

Now I despise ISIS as much as anyone, but let me just toss out a different question: Should we be arming ISIS? Or let me ask that differently: Why are we, for the third time since 9/11, fighting a war on behalf of Iran?

In 2002, we destroyed Iran’s main Sunni foe in Afghanistan (the Taliban regime). In 2003, we destroyed Iran’s main Sunni foe in the Arab world (Saddam Hussein). But because we failed to erect a self-sustaining pluralistic order, which could have been a durable counterbalance to Iran, we created a vacuum in both Iraq and the wider Sunni Arab world. That is why Tehran’s proxies now indirectly dominate four Arab capitals: Beirut, Damascus, Sana and Baghdad.

ISIS, with all its awfulness, emerged as the homegrown Sunni Arab response to this crushing defeat of Sunni Arabism — mixing old pro-Saddam Baathists with medieval Sunni religious fanatics with a collection of ideologues, misfits and adventure-seekers from around the Sunni Muslim world. Obviously, I abhor ISIS and don’t want to see it spread or take over Iraq. I simply raise this question rhetorically because no one else is: Why is it in our interest to destroy the last Sunni bulwark to a total Iranian takeover of Iraq? Because the Shiite militias now leading the fight against ISIS will rule better? Really?

Source

Simple answer to this is, America shouldn’t.

But Friedman doesn’t want to NOT fight a war, he just fears Shite Iran running Iraq. Why? Because this is what the Israel state fears. Instead, like major players in Israel, Mr. Friedman wants us to ponder the idea of supplying ISIS (Al Qeada) with weapons to fight against the Shites. Israel is already providing medical aid to Syrian rebel fighters sworn to Jaba Al Nusra, Al Qeada’s wing in Syria. The lesser of two evils for Israel is having unorganized Sunni groups running rough-shot over the countryside. Thomas Friedman thinks you should agree.

That Awkward Moment When John “Enhanced Interrogation” Yoo Suggested the US Create ISIS

Thought it couldn’t hurt to pass this around. The below is a quote from an op-ed from the Los Angeles Times written by ex-Bush Justice Department lawyer John Yoo. The article discusses Mr. Yoo’s suggestion for dealing with Al Qaeda.

Another tool would have our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within Al Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.

Still creepy as hell.

Mossad-Backed Jundallah Pledges Support for ISIS

Antiwar.com reports that a terrorist group formerly and openly funded by both the CIA and Israeli intelligence has joined ISIS. The post includes multiple sources including stories from Foreign Policy.

In a statement today Jundallah, a high-profile Balochistan-based Islamist faction, announced that it is pledging loyalty to ISIS, and will back “whatever plans they have” going forward. The move follows reports from the Associated Press last week that the group’s leadership was meeting with ISIS members.

Jundallah is primarily a Balochistan separatist group, active in both Pakistan’s far west and in southeastern Iran. In recent years, the group’s attacks have mostly centered on Iran, and there is evidence they have been backedby Israel’s Mossad in doing so.

Jundallah was originally an ally of al-Qaeda, but had a falling out with them in 2003. The group then started getting funding from what they claimed were CIA agents, and there was ample evidence at the time that it was the US funding them.

Even ISIS Understands What “Fiat Currency” Does to an Economy

SIS wants to introduce its own currency and plans to bring back solid gold and silver dinar coins, it has emerged.

The Middle East terror group apparently wants to introduce its own Islamic currency as part of its attempts to solidify its makeshift caliphate.

Militants are said to want to bring back the original dinar, which is an ancient currency from early Islam, and religious figures in Mosul and Iraq’s Nineveh province have apparently announced its return in mosques.

ISIS apparently wants to introduce its own currency and plans to bring back gold and silver dinar coins (above)

Source

American Troops Back in Harms Way in Iraq: Helicopters Return to Combat

Mitchell Prothero and Jonathan Landay break the story over at McClatchy Newspapers. Obama and most Americans believe that American troops won’t need to go back to Iraq to defeat ISIS. That’s why public support is high for intervention in Iraq; because the majority of Americans believed that drones and “aid” to the Iraq army would be the extent of our involvement.

This escalation exposes that myth, and makes the cause for non-intervention. There is no solution. You can’t defeat a insurgency that grows with every bomb dropped on a Sunni village. The only way to bring “control” to Iraq is to re-invade. And for what? What does that accomplish? It didn’t work the first time. It wasn’t until the Sunni tribal leaders turned their backs on Al Qaeda In Iraq that some semblance of order returned to the Northern Iraq. The country will still never be the same.

So what does our government do? The predictable thing. It puts American troops back in harms way. These Apache helicopters can be shot down from the ground. Unlike the F-15s & drones. ISIS has already produced a booklet on how to shoot them down! What happens when a pilot is taken hostage and beheaded? You know what will happen. Not one American will blame the sociopaths in the Pentagon for sending troops back into a lawless piece of sand that has no national interest to America. Please read the full scoop below:

— The United States sent attack helicopters into combat against Islamic State targets west of Baghdad on Sunday, the first time low-flying Army aircraft have been committed to fighting in an engagement that the Obama administration has promised would not include “boots on the ground.”

The U.S. Central Command, in a statement about U.S. activities against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, provided few specifics about the helicopters. But they were likely AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, which were deployed to Baghdad International Airport in June to provide protection for U.S. military and diplomatic facilities.

Until Sunday, U.S. airstrikes in Iraq have been limited to fast-moving Air Force and Navy fighter aircraft and drones. But the use of the relatively slow-flying helicopters represents an escalation of American military involvement and is a sign that the security situation in Iraq’s Anbar province is deteriorating. Last week, the Islamic State militants overran numerous Iraqi bases and towns and were becoming a widespread presence in Abu Ghraib, the last major town outside of Baghdad’s western suburbs.

Jeffrey White, a former senior Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who closely follows developments in Iraq, said the use of helicopter gunships by the United States means that U.S. troops effectively are now directly involved in ground battles.

“It’s definitely boots in the air. This is combat, assuming U.S. Army guys were flying the helicopters,” said White, a defense fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a center-right policy institute. “Using helicopter gunships in combat operations means those forces are in combat.”

Moreover, the Obama administration’s decision to authorize the use of U.S. helicopter gunships indicates that nearly two months of U.S.-led airstrikes by fixed-wing fighters and bombers have failed to stop the Islamic State from massing ground troops and launching offensive operations, he said.

“It means however we were applying air power previously didn’t work to stop them from putting together offensive actions. One of the hopes was that using air power would impede them from using offensive operations,” White said. “But apparently, they have been successful in doing that despite the airstrikes.”

At the time the Apache squadron was deployed to Iraq, Pentagon officials said the aircraft would be used to protect American military and diplomatic facilities at the airport and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

But the advance by the Islamic State into the Abu Ghraib area just outside the airport complex threatens to put the militants within rocket and artillery range of the facility, which houses hundreds of U.S. military advisers and a joint operations center. Any sustained shelling would likely force a closure of the airport, posing a hazard not only for American troops working in the joint operations center, but for plans to evacuate U.S. diplomatic personnel.

Although the administration has repeatedly said that no “ground forces” would be used in the fight against the Islamic State, the use of the AH-64 represents a blurring of that promise.

The helicopters carry a two-man crew and with their missiles and powerful canon, increase the amount and accuracy of the firepower that the U.S. military can bring to bear against the Islamic State in support of Iraqi ground troops. But because helicopters fly relatively “low and slow,” the Obama administration is taking on greater risk in terms of exposing U.S. forces to casualties, White said.

“The Iraqi air force just lost a brand new Russian helicopter (to Islamic State ground fire). So it’s significantly higher risk for whoever is flying the mission,” said White. “It’s certainly crossing another threshold. The U.S. is conducting strikes that are directly involved in combat.”

In its announcement, Central Command said the U.S. had employed “bomber, fighter and helicopter aircraft” to attack six targets northeast of Fallujah and southeast of Hit, both Islamic State-occupied towns in Anbar. It also said an Islamic State Humvee had been destroyed northeast of Sinjar, in northern Iraq.

In Syria, the Central Command said, U.S. aircraft struck Islamic State positions described as northwest of Mayadin and northwest of Raqqa. The targets included “a large ISIL unit” and “six ISIL firing positions,” the Central Command said.

Source

Leon Panetta Goes Full Cheney

“I think we’re looking at kind of a 30-year war,” he says, one that will have to extend beyond Islamic State to include emerging threats in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere.”

Magic how the “threat” also follows the US military where ever our natural resource interests go. Anyone who believes this fearmongering needs a hug.

Source