Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 16, 2014

Israel Introduces Iran Bogeyman To Cover Up Its Military Help For ISIS JAN


Below I described the Islamist fighters covered by Israel in the Golan area as "ISIS". The sole source for qualifying those fighters as "ISIS" was from the UNDOC report quoted below: "the appearance of “black flags”—a symbol associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham".

"Black flags", associated by the UN report with ISIS, are also used by Jabhat al-Nusra and some other Islamic groups fighting in Syria. Current reports of insurgency activities in Quneitra do not mention ISIS at all but only Jabhat al-Nusra, Islamic Front and the Syrian Revolutionary Front which all have a different ideologies and are under different command chains than ISIS. It is therefore likely that these groups, not ISIS, were the ones observed by the UN forces in the area.

I have therefor now replaced the "ISIS" description in the original piece below.

/end correction/

In yesterday's post about attack plans against Damascus I mentioned Israeli cover fire for anti-Syrian Islamists occupying the Syrian side of the Golan demarcation zone:

This movement, [...], was supported by Israeli artillery strikes against Syrian units that tried to prevent it.

In what looks like an attempted to cover up the obvious Israeli military help for Islamist anti-government fighters the Jerusalem Post today quoted Israeli intelligence using the Iranian Revolutionary Guard bogeyman to justify such attacks (original link seem unreliable, copy here - Israeli Intel: Iranian Revolutionary Guards Directed Attacks On Israeli Border From Syria):

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), which is present in Syria, directed a number of attacks by pro-Assad regime militias on Israel in recent months, according to Israeli intelligence evaluations.

In one such attack in June, a number of shells were fired by Syrian militias at IDF posts on Mount Hermon. There were no injuries or damages on the Israeli side, and the IDF responded by returning artillery fire.

That is quite a laughable tale. The story of that June incident is also definitely not what Israel told the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) which covered the area at that time:

On 17 June, Council members met to consider the 10 June UNDOF report, which detailed continued violations of the ceasefire line. [...] This report indicated that UNDOF had begun to observe that the more violent aspects of the conflict were now evident in its area of operations, including the use of airstrikes by the government, the use of heavy weapons and captured military equipment by armed opposition groups and the appearance of “black flags”—a symbol associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.
On 23 June, Israel targeted nine Syrian army positions with tank fire and air strikes after mortar fire from the Syrian side the previous day killed an Israeli civilian. Israel’s assessment is that most of these incidents are due to errant fire resulting from fighting in Syria. Israel said that armed opposition groups were probably responsible but that its forces fired on Syrian military positions to stress that Syria was responsible for security on its side of the ceasefire line.

There were ISIS "black flag" forces in the area fighting the Syrian army and some "errant fire" hit Israel. Israel suspected that ISIS "black flag" forces had fired the shells but responded by firing on Syrian government forces thereby helping ISIS "black flag" forces in its fight.

There were no ICRG force and no regime militias, only regular Syrian army troops. It were these troops that Israel attacked after ISIS "black flag" forces fired onto Israeli ground.

Similar happened on March 19:

Syria said one of its soldiers was killed and seven were injured when three army positions near the town of Quneitra were struck on the Syrian side of the cease-fire line between the two countries in the Golan Heights.

Israel said that the targets were an army training facility, a military headquarters and an artillery battery, and that the raid was a response to a bombing along the line Tuesday that injured four Israeli soldiers.
Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, an Israeli army spokesman, said Israel did not know whether the Syrian army, its ally Hezbollah or the rebels they are fighting may have been responsible for planting the bomb. But Israel holds the Syrian army responsible, he said.

August 27:

"Al-Nusra Front and other rebel groups took the Quneitra crossing, and heavy fighting with the Syrian army is continuing in the surrounding area," said Rami Abdel Rahman, head of the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
Israeli army forces - whose posts lie around 200 metres from Syrian posts - fired upon two Syrian army positions, responding to six mortar shells hitting the Israel-controlled portion of the territory.

"In response to the errant fire from the internal fighting in Syria, which hit Israel earlier today and injured an IDF (Israel Defence Forces) officer, the IDF just targeted two Syrian army positions in the Syrian Golan Heights. Hits were confirmed," it said in a statement.

The army did not specify whether the rocket fire came from the pro-government Syrian army or from opposition forces.

September 4:

The Israeli army said it struck a Syrian military position on Thursday after presumed "errant fire" hit the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.
A military spokeswoman told AFP it hit an open field without causing any damage or harm to anyone.

"Initial reviews suggest that this was a result of errant fire from the internal fighting in Syria," the statement said.

"In response, the IDF (Israel Occupation Forces) targeted a Syrian army position. Hits were confirmed."

The common part of all these incidents is that some "errant fire" hits Israel while fighting between ISIS and the Syrian army is ongoing on the other side of the border. Israel always responds by shelling Syrian army position. This is of course direct military help to ISIS "black flag" fighters who might use such "errant fire" on Israel to receive the by now obviously predictable help against the Syrian army.

To now come out with a fantasy story involving the IRCG bogeyman and "pro-Assad regime militias" to cover up Israels direct help to ISIS "black flag" forces against the Syrian army is rather lame.

Posted by b on September 16, 2014 at 12:08 PM | Permalink


May be that's why Bibi wants to join the coalition:

Which path to Persia !!!
Well here is one way - whilst the Sunnis are killing all the minorities, Mossad et al.will make their way to the border with Iran.
Any excuse for an Israeli strike at Iran

Posted by: Yul | Sep 16, 2014 12:21:10 PM | 1

Israel is not going to strike Iran, Yul.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 16, 2014 12:46:05 PM | 2

surprise, surprise... israel helping ISIS, or ISUS - whatever you want to call it.. thanks for the overview here b.

Posted by: james | Sep 16, 2014 12:53:21 PM | 3


According to Matthew Lee at ICP:

Now al Nusra fighters are using UN weapons, UN vehicles and even UN uniforms, Ja'afari said. The Security Council is to meet on this topic on September 17 -- behind closed doors.

Whilst Cameron is busy with Scotland , François Hollande who listens to lover boy cum philosopher Bernard Henry Levy must be working the IR and Pol Sci dept of Quai d'Orsay to be opportunistic ( all in the name of saving the Christians of Iraq whilst the Syrian ones in Homs or Aleppo have been left to fend for themselves since 2011). They would like to see Assad being lynched like Gaddafi .

Posted by: Yul | Sep 16, 2014 1:38:45 PM | 4

Borders are being redrawn. Obama's proposal to create an army of "moderate" Syrian rebels, a fable that even the MSM refuses to swallow, is the U.S. way of saying that Syria's territorial boundaries no longer exist. If and when ISIS is displaced that territory will belong to whomever the U.S. and its C.O.W. designates.

In this situation Israel is going to grab what it can. And that means biting off more turf to the east of the Golan.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Sep 16, 2014 3:58:36 PM | 5

"Israel said that armed opposition groups were probably responsible but that its forces fired on Syrian military positions to stress that Syria was responsible for security on its side of the ceasefire line." <- BECAUSE FUCK LOGIC, RIGHT?

Posted by: bob | Sep 16, 2014 4:18:45 PM | 6

Checking Israeli propaganda against other sources (in this case the UN) is good reporting, b. Thanks.

Posted by: ess emm | Sep 16, 2014 4:47:32 PM | 7

yeah, remember this "errant fire" on homs just a year ago or so? or this just outside of damascus?

Posted by: john | Sep 16, 2014 4:53:09 PM | 8

- Israeli support for ISIS ? Is Israel & the US working on a "regime change" plan for the current Iraqi government ?

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 16, 2014 5:49:35 PM | 9

Marko Antonovic said ...

We have to see this! ISIS and Pravy Sektor Connection --

Pravy">">Pravy Sektor Coup as ISIS Scenario: NATO to Feign a ‘Unilaterial’ Alliance With Russia

So far, just about every forecast Flores has made has come to pass. Remember that only he and Cassad had the right line on the 5 July Slaviansk maneuver when it happened.

He's made a lot of videos and seems to have a good handle on NATO's long term goals going back to Jan. and Feb! He mixes various schools from military science to Marxism to realism, marketing, psychology, and post-modernism.

Now he has something yesterday out about a possible US backed Pravy Sektor covert 'coup'. It's modeled after Al Nusra, FSA, and ISIS.

He's not throwing all his eggs in that basket, but I'm sure it need to be looked at.

If you can read Russian then you have already seen today where the first signs of this are already happening.

Spying on his FB I saw that Flores is frends with Pravy Sektor leadership, so who knows whats up with that?? But it leads me to think he knows stuff.

Also Alexander Dugin regularly likes his posts and they seem to know echother and work on same projects. So hmmmm. I dunno its conspiracies from here, but it gets my mind going for sure!

Posted by: Marko Antonovic | Sep 16, 2014 6:30:55 PM | 10

Sorry my link not work!

Pravy">">Pravy Sektor Coup as ISIS Scenario: NATO to Feign a ‘Unilaterial’ Alliance With Russia

Posted by: Marko Antonovic | Sep 16, 2014 6:33:56 PM | 11

Posted by: ess emm | Sep 16, 2014 4:47:32 PM | 7

Agreed, Thanks b

Posted by: jo6pac | Sep 16, 2014 6:42:31 PM | 12

Limited cast of bogeyman. Has Iran produced any states like the newly liberated Libya lately? Echos of Roman wars, during the "Republic". The newest totalitarian will suck up to the earlier example, like the interplay between Germany and Italy leading up to WW2.

Posted by: Jay M | Sep 16, 2014 8:43:52 PM | 13

So much for the "moderate" rebels:

Middle East Eye: Free Syrian Army will not join US-led coalition against IS

(h/t to

Posted by: Demian | Sep 17, 2014 12:52:38 AM | 15

@15 Demian

Senator John McCain must have been on the phone to syria yesterday.

Posted by: really | Sep 17, 2014 2:14:38 AM | 16

Turkey is planning a safe haven for IS on its border:

Turkey is developing plans for a buffer zone on its border with Iraq and Syria, to counter the threat from Islamic State militants, its president says.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan told Turkish media the military were working on the plans, which he would then decide on.

He gave no further details about where the buffer zone could be established or how it would work.

Posted by: okie farmer | Sep 17, 2014 2:24:43 AM | 17

Ah, so today ISIS is no longer gone rogue, I see....
Perhaps it was b, and not ISIS that went rogue yesterday :-))

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 17, 2014 3:43:43 AM | 18

US prepares for “generational” war in the Middle East
By Peter Symonds
17 September 2014
At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey set the stage for a massive and protracted expansion of US military operations in Iraq and Syria.

“This will require a sustained effort over an extended period of time. It is a generational problem,” Dempsey told the committee.

In his opening testimony, Dempsey contradicted President Obama’s pledge last week that there would be no American troops engaged in combat in Iraq or Syria. “To be clear,” he stated, “if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] targets, I will recommend that to the president.”

Obama has already authorised the deployment of 1,600 American military personnel in Iraq, including the placement of US troops with Kurdish peshmerga militia and Iraqi army forces fighting ISIL, more commonly known as ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). Speaking on behalf of the US military hierarchy, Dempsey made clear that such advisers could not be confined to headquarters, but would be needed to provide “close combat advising” in complex operations such as dislodging ISIS from urban areas like Mosul.

In remarks bordering on insubordination, Dempsey implicitly criticised Obama when he explained that the president had already turned down the recommendation of Central Command chief, General Lloyd Austin, to deploy American troops as spotters to call in air strikes during last month’s offensive to retake the Mosul Dam from ISIS.

Dempsey’s public disagreement points to tensions with the White House and the degree to which the military and intelligence apparatus are calling the shots in the new US-led war in the Middle East. The real purpose of the military intervention, a revival of plans shelved last year, is the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. This will necessarily require a far greater American military commitment than currently acknowledged.

In the space of just over a month, what was initially announced as limited air strikes to protect the Yazidi minority in Iraq has been transformed into a full-blown war in Iraq and Syria involving the US and some 40 allies. Both Dempsey and Hagel reaffirmed yesterday that the air war that has already begun in Iraq would be taken into Syria. “This is an Iraq-first strategy… but not an Iraq-only one,” Dempsey said.

Hagel told the Senate Committee that Obama will meet with General Austin today at the Central Command headquarters in Tampa for a briefing on the war preparations. “The plan includes targeted actions against USIL safe havens in Syria—including its command and control, logistics capabilities, and infrastructure,” he stated.

Hagel dismissed any notion of Syrian national sovereignty, declaring that “our actions will not be restrained by a border in name only. As the president said last week, ‘if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.’”

As was the case in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Obama administration is launching an illegal war of aggression over the vocal opposition of the Syrian government, which is well aware that it is the real target.

While maintaining the pretext of destroying ISIS, Hagel put Assad squarely in the US cross-hairs. “As we pursue this program,” he declared, “the United States will continue to press for a political resolution to the Syrian conflict resulting in the end of the Assad regime. Assad has lost all legitimacy to govern, and has created the conditions that allowed ISIL and other terrorist groups to gain ground and terrorise and slaughter the Syrian population.”

The cynicism is staggering. For the past three years, the Obama administration and its allies, especially Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, have backed, financed and armed the anti-Assad militias to overthrow the Syrian government. Having turned a blind eye to atrocities carried out in Syria by ISIS and other reactionary Islamist forces, Washington has seized on the beheading of two American journalists to justify the launching of a war to oust Assad.

Along with US air strikes in Syria, Hagel detailed plans to “train, equip and resupply more than 5,000 [Syrian] opposition forces over one year. The package of assistance that we initially provide would consist of small arms, vehicles, and basic equipment like communications, as well as tactical and strategic training.”

Hagel’s claims that there will be “a rigorous vetting process” to ensure that “weapons do not fall into the hand of radical elements of the opposition” have no credibility. The very fact that the training will take place in Saudi Arabia, one of the chief backers of Islamist militias in Syria, including ISIS, makes clear that the “vetting” will be to ensure that the overriding commitment of these forces is to oust Assad.

In his remarks, Dempsey spoke of the need to “destroy ISIL in Iraq,” where it threatens the stability of the US puppet regime in Baghdad. But he set a more modest goal for Syria, where the Islamist organisation could still be called on as part of the regime-change operation against Assad. There he said the aim was to “disrupt ISIL.”

Dempsey also indicated that the US was pressuring unnamed Sunni Arab nations with “very considerable” Special Forces to commit troops to assist anti-Assad militias on the ground in Syria. While he did not name specific countries, they likely include Qatar and Saudi Arabia, whose intelligence agencies have undoubtedly been active inside Syria.

A revealing exchange in the Senate hearing involving Republican Senator John McCain with Hagel and Dempsey underscored the purpose of the unfolding war. After declaring that it was a “fundamental fallacy” to rely on the Syrian opposition to prioritise fighting ISIS ahead of fighting Assad, McCain asked whether these militias would receive American air cover if attacked by the Syrian military.

The question came too close to the truth—that such an attack, real or fabricated, would provide a convenient pretext for unleashing devastating air strikes against the Syrian military. Responding to McCain, Hagel did not rule out the possibility, simply saying: “We’re not there yet, but our focus is on ISIL.”

Dempsey was more open, stating that “if we were to take [fighting] Assad off the table, we’d have a much more difficult time” persuading the Syrian opposition to join the US-led war. He said the administration had an “ISIL-first strategy”—meaning an open assault against Assad would soon follow.

Behind the backs of the American people and without even the fig leaf of congressional authorisation—which both parties would overwhelming provide, if asked—the Obama administration is embarking on a reckless and illegal war of aggression aimed at securing US hegemony over the Middle East and beyond. While Assad is the immediate target, the US is preparing for a confrontation with his backers—Iran and Russia—that threatens to trigger a far more devastating war.

Posted by: okie farmer | Sep 17, 2014 4:34:11 AM | 19

Israel, duh, so what? Nothing you say will stop them. What you say now is a diversion from U.S. government meaning our, responsibility.

Posted by: Me | Sep 17, 2014 4:49:46 AM | 20

As the president said last week, ‘if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.’”

Unless you're Putin and Russia, of course. Russia's been smacking you around and threatening you all over the place, but instead of confronting that very real threat directly, you feel compelled to instead take it out on a bunch of self-flagellating Arabs. Cowards.

American foreign policy is that of deceit and cowardice. Teddy Roosevelt would be ashamed. I wish he were alive today to rip the Beltway Bastards a new one. In fact, I'd say Teddy would scarcely recognize the great country he once presided over as President, but if you think about it, America's foreign policy today is the direct result of the imperialistic expansionism he set in motion over a century prior. Putin's Russia resembles more the America Teddy presided over versus the perverted Goliath his baby America's become.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 17, 2014 6:16:52 AM | 21

Before anything can be understood and put in its proper context, we have to establish what the definition of IS is. Maybe Bill Clinton can give us his definition and we can go from there.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 17, 2014 6:18:35 AM | 22

Today was a sad one for families of the 100s of victims who were lost on MH17, all for the Neo Liberal Wet Dream. Just last week the Pentagon used that bogeyman scare of MH17 being 'Shot Down by the 'Rushkies™' to enrich more than a dozen WADC-NOVA spook tanks with SEVEN BILLION $s for 'global intelligence gathering', over and above all the other existing black ops funding, and why WADC-NOVA is the priciest real estate in all of the Americas.

But today was truly sad, not just as Poroshenko got his needed votes to become a vassal state of the EU, the 'high-priced hooker', rather than a simple street tart to Mokva, and in doing so, elevating the Nulands, the Kerry-Kohns and the Bidens to pop-star status.
Oh frabjius day, kaloo, kalay!!

And yet the Pentagon still wasn't done, announcing ONE BILLION $s in MODIFICATIONS to a cost-plus contract to bring Space Lift back to the United States, and forever out of the hands of Russians or Elon Musk, now consigned to hauling ISS trash, while The Right Stuff over at Boeing and Lockheed-Martin buckle up for Kennedy Two: Four TRILLION Mars Mission.

Was that what MH17 was all about? EU membership, 2015 Spy-Ops and The Right Stuff Mars?
Is that all we are to them, meat pawns in a cash and hashtag circus of criminally insane?

Posted by: ChipNikh | Sep 17, 2014 6:58:06 AM | 23

- I think "b" is making a little mistake. It's Al-Nusrah and not ISIS that's fighting in the south of Syria.
- If then ISIS and Al-Nusrah start to fight each other in Syria (after Assad is gone) then Israel's wish comes true. "No outcome in Syria". (Micheal Orrin, former Israëli ambassador in Washington).
- Or are ISIS & Al-Nusrah going to join up and fight in Iraq and/or Jordan ?
- Al Nusrah fighting in the south enables ISIS to target Aleppo.

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 17, 2014 8:52:07 AM | 24

"Michael Oren: Israel wants Assad to be removed"

and Netanjahu denies that view:
(subscription required, only a teaser available)

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 17, 2014 8:58:53 AM | 25

@all - please see the correction I added to the piece.

The sole claim of ISIS in the area is through a "black flag" the UN observed. There are other groups, including JAN, that use such flags. It may well be that JAN, not ISIS, is the group Israel supports.

Posted by: b | Sep 17, 2014 9:05:06 AM | 26

Links regarding Syria from the israeli newspaper Haaretz:

Scare mongering from an israeli army officer: "Hezbollah may seize Israëli territory".

Is this a sign/confirmation Hezbollah/Lebanon is next on the list of "regime changes" ? It certainly fits the pattern of depicting Hezbollah an "evil". Lebanon was put on that list by the Bush administration in the second half of 2001, along with Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan & Somalia. Remember, the US made invasion plans for Afghanistan in the 1st half of 2001 BEFORE the attacks on 9/11 happened.

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 17, 2014 9:09:42 AM | 27

Michael Oren:

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 17, 2014 9:13:04 AM | 28

The US strategy becomes clear:
- Support Al-Nusrah.
- pin down ISIS.

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 17, 2014 9:17:18 AM | 29

I still can't understand why b is separating ISIS from all the other brands of NaTO's Islamists?

Different brands don't make a different product

Posted by: Penny | Sep 17, 2014 9:23:15 AM | 30

Al-Qaeda seeks to unite Islamic Front ahead of US airstrikes in Syria

from RT:
Al-Qaeda has urged militant groups in Iraq and Syria to put their differences aside and unite against a US coalition which will strike against the Islamic State (IS).

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb made a rare joint plea to jihadist organizations, which was posted online.

"Stop the infighting between you and stand as one rank against America's campaign and that of its satanic alliance …"In the face of this unjust crusaders' campaign, we have no choice but to stand in front of the hater of Islam and Muslims, the US and its allies, who are the real enemies of the Muslim world,"

If AQ Central has any real influence over Jabhat al-Nusra and other jihadist groups, this call for a strategic alliance with ISIS could throw a monkey-wrench into any plans US/Isreal have. Will be interesting to see if this affects al-Nusra/Isreal relationship in spite of mutuality of interest over Syria.

Posted by: pantaraxia | Sep 17, 2014 9:45:20 AM | 31

I second Penny.
If they do make a different product, could you please go all Juan Cole or Josh Landis on us and describe the differences in depth.
Not just: one is more extreme or more religious, but something substantive.

The only difference I can suss out is that one is sponsored by Jordan, and the other Turkey; one is reponsible for Allepo, the other Damascus. So maybe the spoils will be allocated on that basis.

But I'll draw the analogy to professional sports. A fan sees the difference between this cities team and that. But the guys who own the entire league don't care who wins the game. Its bound to be one of their teams. And guess who owns the league?

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 17, 2014 9:57:39 AM | 32

Agree. It doesn't matter which is doing what. The one is more radical than the other. But the point is that there're 2 separate groups. And that allows the US to pin down ISIS (with bombing Raqqa) and it benefits Al-Nusrah. Therefore it allows the US to execute its strategy wihtout the involvement of ISIS.

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 17, 2014 11:48:25 AM | 33

willy2 @33

The US has no intent to "pin down" ISIS. ISIS provides cover for the US/Israeli/GCC middle east reamake agenda.
None of the radicals are more radical then the other
you simply believe this is so
the facts say otherwise

I wrote a post to this effect some time ago at my blog
using the smoke and mirror analogy, because that is all this is

Posted by: Penny | Sep 17, 2014 12:52:43 PM | 34

I still can't understand why b is separating ISIS from all the other brands of NaTO's Islamists?

Different ideology, attracting different people, different military planing capabilities (ISIS has lots of Saddam officers), different weapons, different tactics, different sponsors etc.

If you want to fight them, like really fight them on the ground, all these are important points that you will have to know to successfully beat the group you are confronting. To throw all these groups into one bucket and to think they are all alike anyway is just simply minded nonsense.

Posted by: b | Sep 17, 2014 2:18:28 PM | 35

Not nearly as "simple minded" as contending that ISIS is some sort of "anti-imperialist" resistance group, which is ehat b was hilariously attempting to claim a mere day or 2 ago

Posted by: blowMe | Sep 17, 2014 2:30:22 PM | 36

Nope. ISIS seems to be truly hated throughout the Middle East but that's not the case for Al Nusrah (yet). The US/Saudi Arabia hope that they can control Al Nusrah but I have my doubts. See what happened in Afghanistan with the Taliban.

Yes, Al Nusrah is also a bunch of "useful idiots" but I doubt they can be controled. They could turn on Jordan and then the entire Middle East goes up in flames.

Posted by: Will2 | Sep 17, 2014 2:35:47 PM | 37

Comment #37 was a reply to comment #34.

Posted by: Will2 | Sep 17, 2014 2:47:43 PM | 38

@blowMe - you obviously lack the knowledge of ISIS's philosophical/ideological background. It is certainly, in many of its aspects, a quite different beast than the other groups on the ground.

Yes, the U.S. uses the existence of ISIS for its own purpose. That does not mean that the U.S. created or controls it. Me using a taxi does not mean that I built it or payed for the drivers mother life insurance. I only use it for my ride.

The conclusion that if the U.S. uses something for its purposes it must have created or be responsible for that phenomenon has no serious basis.

Posted by: b | Sep 17, 2014 2:52:39 PM | 39

"To throw all these groups into one bucket and to think they are all alike anyway is just simply minded nonsense"

To claim they are separate as in functioning separately without the same main agenda is simply silly minded nonsense.

As was claiming ISIS was anything but a NATO directed group giving cover for the greater goal of remaking the ME

And those are two claims you have made on more then one occasion

Posted by: Penny | Sep 17, 2014 3:16:53 PM | 40

"The conclusion that if the U.S. uses something for its purposes it must have created or be responsible for that phenomenon has no serious basis"

Yah, sure b- So when ISIS appeared right when the US wanted to oust Maliki that was just a happy coincidence?

And now, oh my, ISIS is in Syria and as coincidence would have it the US wants to oust Assad! Just another happy coincidence?

You're a coincidence theorist, then?

Cui bono. Cui bono.

Posted by: Penny | Sep 17, 2014 3:19:57 PM | 41

Qatar isn't a country. Its an AngloAmerican cutout (complete with Naval base and media wing)for deniability in foreign policy. Who forced government change there? Do they need more money, that the pipeline, which is responsible 6-9 million losing their homes and 1-200k dead in Syria, is intended to bring? Obviously not, if they have tens of billions for war.

Penny, truly, we are shouting at the deaf, and signing the blind!

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 17, 2014 5:53:53 PM | 42

sometimes folks can't see the forest for the trees.. and vice versa..

Posted by: james | Sep 17, 2014 6:17:42 PM | 43

CH;You are confused.

Posted by: dahoit | Sep 17, 2014 6:52:55 PM | 44

Even the mainstream US press has finally figured this out:

Daily Beast: White House Has No International Legal Justification for Hitting ISIS in Syria

Posted by: Demian | Sep 17, 2014 9:22:12 PM | 45

Malooga @ 42

"Penny, truly, we are shouting at the deaf, and signing the blind!"

I don't throw pearls after swine.
And don't bother with the blatantly absurd.

Posted by: Penny | Sep 18, 2014 6:57:03 AM | 46

Yes, the U.S. uses the existence of ISIS for its own purpose.

And so too does most everyone else. IS is a shared resource.

In that sense, is IS really an independent entity, or is it whatever any of these interested parties want it to be at any given moment? It's a symbiotic relationship similar to an author and his/her audience. Initially, the author is independent in his/her creation, but once he/she develops a significant following, that following begins to exert pressure on the author to conform to its expectations, and once that process ensues, independent creativity dwindles.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 18, 2014 8:32:01 AM | 47

The comments to this entry are closed.


Site Meter