Geopenbaarde documenten: Westen steunde de creatie van terreurgroep IS

quote:

For the past year, US, British and other western forces have been back in Iraq, supposedly in the cause of destroying the hyper-sectarian terror group Islamic State (formerly known as al-Qaida in Iraq). This was after Isis overran huge chunks of Iraqi and Syrian territory and proclaimed a self-styled Islamic caliphate.

The campaign isn't going well. Last month, Isis rolled into the Iraqi city of Ramadi, while on the other side of the now nonexistent border its forces conquered the Syrian town of Palmyra. Al-Qaida's official franchise, the Nusra Front, has also been making gains in Syria.

Some Iraqis complain that the US sat on its hands while all this was going on. The Americans insist they are trying to avoid civilian casualties, and claim significant successes. Privately, officials say they don't want to be seen hammering Sunni strongholds in a sectarian war and risk upsetting their Sunni allies in the Gulf.

A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts - and effectively welcomes - the prospect of a "Salafist principality" in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the "major forces driving the insurgency in Syria" - and states that "western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey" were supporting the opposition's efforts to take control of eastern Syria.

Raising the "possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality", the Pentagon report goes on, "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)".

American forces bomb one set of rebels while backing another in Syria

Which is pretty well exactly what happened two years later. The report isn't a policy document. It's heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren't only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of "Islamic state" - despite the "grave danger" to Iraq's unity - as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria.

That doesn't mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it - as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, acknowledged last year. But there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of Isis against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control.

The calculus changed when Isis started beheading westerners and posting atrocities online, and the Gulf states are now backing other groups in the Syrian war, such as the Nusra Front. But this US and western habit of playing with jihadi groups, which then come back to bite them, goes back at least to the 1980s war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which fostered the original al-Qaida under CIA tutelage.

It was recalibrated during the occupation of Iraq, when US forces led by General Petraeus sponsored an El Salvador-style dirty war of sectarian death squads to weaken the Iraqi resistance. And it was reprised in 2011 in the Nato-orchestrated war in Libya, where Isis last week took control of Gaddafi's home town of Sirte.

In reality, US and western policy in the conflagration that is now the Middle East is in the classic mould of imperial divide-and-rule. American forces bomb one set of rebels while backing another in Syria, and mount what are effectively joint military operations with Iran against Isis in Iraq while supporting Saudi Arabia's military campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen. However confused US policy may often be, a weak, partitioned Iraq and Syria fit such an approach perfectly.

What's clear is that Isis and its monstrosities won't be defeated by the same powers that brought it to Iraq and Syria in the first place, or whose open and covert war-making has fostered it in the years since. Endless western military interventions in the Middle East have brought only destruction and division. It's the people of the region who can cure this disease - not those who incubated the virus.
https://www.theguardian.c(...)3/us-isis-syria-iraq

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

The below screenshot shows that extreme Muslim terrorists – salafists, Muslims Brotherhood, and AQI (i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq) – have always been the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.”

This verifies what the alternative media has been saying for years: there aren’t any moderate rebels in Syria.



The document goes on to state: … 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 …

This shows how the powers that were supporting the Syrian opposition–the Western military alliance and their allies in the middle east–wanted an Islamic caliphate in order to challenge Syrian president Assad.

quote:

US troops ‘saved’ Daesh terrorists, leaders from Taliban siege in east Afghanistan
_{Sat Jun 22, 2019}

US troops in Afghanistan have rushed to help members of the Daesh group following a Taliban operation to purge the terrorists from the country’s east, according to Taliban militants.

The Taliban militant group said in a statement on Friday that US soldiers “saved” Daesh members as well as their local leaders by helicopters from a siege they had been trapped in the eastern Afghan province of Kunar.

“The US troops saved them from the siege by helicopters,” the statement said, adding that the Taliban had been launching an anti-Daesh operation for one week in Kunar and had surrounded the terrorist outfit’s important individuals.

A large number of Daesh terrorists were rescued by choppers while fleeing a battlefield with Taliban last year in the northern province of Jawzjan.

The Economic Times estimated in a recent report that around 10,000 members of the Takfiri terrorist group were present in Afghanistan and the number was growing on Washington’s watch.

[...]

https://www.presstv.com/D(...)sh-Taliban-operation

quote:

Op zondag 23 juni 2019 19:54 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

Waarom is het dan nog niet verplaatst?

quote:

For the past year, US, British and other western forces have been back in Iraq, supposedly in the cause of destroying the hyper-sectarian terror group Islamic State (formerly known as al-Qaida in Iraq). This was after Isis overran huge chunks of Iraqi and Syrian territory and proclaimed a self-styled Islamic caliphate.

The campaign isn't going well. Last month, Isis rolled into the Iraqi city of Ramadi, while on the other side of the now nonexistent border its forces conquered the Syrian town of Palmyra. Al-Qaida's official franchise, the Nusra Front, has also been making gains in Syria.

Some Iraqis complain that the US sat on its hands while all this was going on. The Americans insist they are trying to avoid civilian casualties, and claim significant successes. Privately, officials say they don't want to be seen hammering Sunni strongholds in a sectarian war and risk upsetting their Sunni allies in the Gulf.

A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts - and effectively welcomes - the prospect of a "Salafist principality" in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the "major forces driving the insurgency in Syria" - and states that "western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey" were supporting the opposition's efforts to take control of eastern Syria.

Raising the "possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality", the Pentagon report goes on, "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)".

American forces bomb one set of rebels while backing another in Syria

Which is pretty well exactly what happened two years later. The report isn't a policy document. It's heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren't only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of "Islamic state" - despite the "grave danger" to Iraq's unity - as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria.

That doesn't mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it - as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, acknowledged last year. But there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of Isis against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control.

The calculus changed when Isis started beheading westerners and posting atrocities online, and the Gulf states are now backing other groups in the Syrian war, such as the Nusra Front. But this US and western habit of playing with jihadi groups, which then come back to bite them, goes back at least to the 1980s war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which fostered the original al-Qaida under CIA tutelage.

It was recalibrated during the occupation of Iraq, when US forces led by General Petraeus sponsored an El Salvador-style dirty war of sectarian death squads to weaken the Iraqi resistance. And it was reprised in 2011 in the Nato-orchestrated war in Libya, where Isis last week took control of Gaddafi's home town of Sirte.

In reality, US and western policy in the conflagration that is now the Middle East is in the classic mould of imperial divide-and-rule. American forces bomb one set of rebels while backing another in Syria, and mount what are effectively joint military operations with Iran against Isis in Iraq while supporting Saudi Arabia's military campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen. However confused US policy may often be, a weak, partitioned Iraq and Syria fit such an approach perfectly.

What's clear is that Isis and its monstrosities won't be defeated by the same powers that brought it to Iraq and Syria in the first place, or whose open and covert war-making has fostered it in the years since. Endless western military interventions in the Middle East have brought only destruction and division. It's the people of the region who can cure this disease - not those who incubated the virus.

quote:

Op zondag 23 juni 2019 20:06 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:

[..]

En geschreven door een extreem-linkse communist .

quote:

Op zondag 23 juni 2019 20:08 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Judicial Watch is dit zeer zeker niet. Ze zijn een stel activistische conservatieven waar republikeinen weinig fout bij kunnen doen en democraten te gebeten hond zijn.
Onder "in de gaten houden" verstaan zij klaarblijkelijk allemaal hysterische conspiratorial onzin opwerpen. Er staat een hele bloemlezing over hun bullshit op wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch

quote:

Op zondag 23 juni 2019 20:08 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

Zou zomaar eens waar kunnen zijn.

quote:

Op zondag 23 juni 2019 20:21 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

De printscreen is van de waarheidssite: https://hoax.fandom.com/nl/wiki/9_For_News (ofwel letterlijk de eerste hit op google na hun eigen url: https://www.google.com/search?q=ninefornews.nl ) Ze zijn voortgekomen uit Niburu, misschien dat je dat kent?

Maar goed, artikel van The Guardian dus? Misschien een goed idee dan om de OP even aan te passen.

quote:

Op zondag 23 juni 2019 20:21 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:
Een nog veel slechtere bron . Het is namelijk niet eens een nieuwsbericht maar gewoon een column.

quote:

Op zondag 23 juni 2019 20:20 schreef Oud_student het volgende:
Typisch die users die hard BNW roepen als er feiten en meningen worden verkondigd die hun niet welgevallig zijn. Nog erger als het moderatoren zijn.
Het is algemeen bekend dat er bijna 100 zgn. anti Assad strijdgroepen waren. Een half jaar geleden kwam ook in Nederland aan het licht dat de groepen die wij steunden allemaal samenwerkten met IS. Al het materiaal is naar IS of IS achtige strijders terroristen gegaan.
Jarenlang is Assad als de boosdoener afgeschilderd, terwijl de terroristen burgers vermoordden, steden in puin brachten, kunstschatten stalen of vernietigden.

Je hoort er nu niets meer over

quote:

Op zondag 23 juni 2019 20:27 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Nee, het is gewoon dat het veel minder energie kost om onzin op internet te knallen, dan om het te debunken, keer op keer op keer. Die asymmetrie zorgt er voor, dat, als ik alleen maar even voor mezelf spreek, dat soort bronnen gewoon resoluut naar de prullenbak verwijs. Zinloos om verdere energie aan te besteden.

quote:

Op zondag 23 juni 2019 20:32 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Er is niet "feitelijk vastgelegd" dat deze nep-nieuws creeeren. CNN overdrijft soms een camera-shot, dat zou ik met je eens zijn. Ze zijn feitelijker dan Fox News bv. maar los daarvan zou ik mij nieuws bij voorkeur niet van CNN, Fox News of MSNBC halen.

De NOS is imo volstrekt onvergelijkbaar en journalistiek goed. Misschien met een wat grootstedelijke bias, want daar zullen journalisten nu eenmaal wonen na het decennia-langen inkalven van het lokale nieuws. Helaas.

quote:

Op zondag 23 juni 2019 20:38 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Ik accepteer ook bronnen die niet in mijn straatje passen, maar ninefornews/Niburu past daar niet in. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News passen daar meer in al zou ik daarvoor wat meer op mijn hoede zijn, met name bij die laatste na hun Seth Rich gefaal van een tijd terug, wat zijn evenknie echt niet kent bij andere reguliere media.

quote:

Op zondag 23 juni 2019 20:59 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Je probeert steeds dingen aan me voor te houden wat inhoudelijk op het artikel in gaat. Ik ga dat spelletje niet met je spelen.

Je begrijpt kennelijk mijn standpunt niet: "Kom met een betrouwbare bron, want dan kan het voldoende vaak genoeg lonen om er verder in te duiken." Niet: "Pak een willekeurige website op internet met een historie van het publiceren van echt absolute hersenspinsels waar een artikel staat wat linkt naar een stel politieke activisten en behandel dat als nieuws waar we het over gaan hebben."

Ik doe daar niet aan mee. Misschien dat je iemand anders wel zo gek krijgt om daar aan mee te doen.

Edit: Als OP het over een nieuwsuur item wil hebben, dan kan hij dat aangeven in zijn OP. Of jij kan er een topic over openen.
Edit2: Ik ben er nu trouwens wel echt klaar mee, heb mijn zegje gedaan. Fijne avond verder.

quote:

Op zondag 23 juni 2019 21:19 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Hij kleurt vervolgens zelf in dat het westen de opmars van IS heeft 'verwelkomd', wat iets anders is dan de groep actief steunen, zoals het artikel in de spoiler suggereert.

quote:

Een wat suggestieve kop? Wat eindjes aan elkaar geknoopt die je niet bevallen?

quote:

Op zondag 23 juni 2019 21:30 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Kortom, het westen (de VS) heeft de opkomst hooguit verwelkomd, en niet actief gesteund. Maar zelfs bij die conclusie kunnen vraagtekens worden geplaatst, omdat onduidelijk is wat de status was van dat document en wat ermee is gedaan.

Uiteindelijk zitten we dus met een OP die niet klopt en is gestaafd op een vier jaar oud opiniestuk.

Weet dus niet preciew wat we hier verder mee moeten.

quote:

Op zondag 23 juni 2019 23:37 schreef ACT-F het volgende:
Om te voorkomen dat er een aardgasleiding vanaf Qatar naar Turkije (en daarmee doorvoer naar Europa) gelegd kan worden heeft Putin jaren geleden een pact gesloten met Assad