Posted on 04/10/2018 6:06:27 AM PDT by BeadCounter
OVERVIEW
This article uses publicly available evidence from 2003-2010 to explore the accusation that Bashar al Assad and the Syrian government deliberately supported Al-Qaeda jihadis in Syria so they could carry out attacks in Iraq. As these years were the formative ones for ISIS, then known by a series of different names, the evidence strongly, but not conclusively, points to Syria having helped ISIS form. There is no evidence that Syria intended for the jihadi group to grow into what it has become, but rather that Syria seems to have supported it for short-term, strategic ends.
Late last fall, a series was released by the Daily Beast about Bashar Al-Assad and his government’s supposed role in the formation of ISIS. Part One explored how the regime facilitated jihadis in Syria from 2000-2010 by letting them base themselves in Syria. Part Two details how a series of bombings in Damascus in late 2011 and early 2012 when the uprisings in Syria were really gaining steam were actually carried out by the Assad regime and blamed on Al-Qaeda. The defectors interviewed claim this was done to sectarianize the uprising and provide support for Assad’s discourse that he was fighting terror and needed Western support doing this. Part Three explores all the instances on the battlefield in Syria where the regime supposedly avoided clashing with ISIS. The claims in the series, especially those in part one, have been present in pubic discourse for some time and were expressed in a more detailed form with citations by Charles Lister in his “The Syrian Jihad“. Can the claims that come from defectors and anti-regime rebels be corroborated in these other sources? What kinds of sources do these other works use and can they help us triangulate the issues?
(Excerpt) Read more at historyxisis.com ...
I call Bravo Sierra. Saudi Arabian money helped create along with the malfeasance of the Obama Administration and the Clinton State Department. All one has to do is look at the so-called Arab Spring and its players to see who was behind the move to establish a Saudi-controlled caliphate.
“Levant” is a term that encompasses the entire eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean, from Gaza to the Gulf of Iskenderun. Israel is only a part of that shoreline.
Exactly.
The Deep State - encompassing BOTH parties - wanted ISIS as a proxy in the region, primarily to keep things roiled and to take out Assad, who has consistently resisted the neo-Con/Deep State efforts gain control of certain oil pipelines going through the country.
Why the hell would Assad build ISIS? This bit of MSM/Deep State propaganda is surely intended for the most stupid among us.
Assad is a minority Alawite, fighting for his survival against a radical Sunni majority. We all know Saudi Arabia, with help from the United States (ie. Obama, Brennan, McCain) has used Saudi-sponsored fighters to try and force Assad out. What then is ISIS? You can connect the dots.
And the Toyota's were OURS too!
the liberal political correctness brigade is about to ban the term “levant”, is it what you mean?
Seeing the name Charles Lister negates anything this BS article purports.
This thread is full of all kinds of conspiracy theories about who created and/or built ISIS.
Actually ISIS created and built ISIS.
They did have outside help, some malicious and intentional (the ISIS oil pipeline from Syria to Turkey with Erdogan’s help), and financing from prominent Sunni nations in the Gulf.
They arose out of an earlier Al Queda affiliate in Iraq, after that affiliate was nearly decimated in northern Iraq at the early part of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, in an alliance between the U.S. and the Kurds. What later became ISIS wandered around Iraq from 2003 on, striking some terrorist action when it could, grouping and regrouping as it became less powerful, and by the time Obama and Maliki were dickering over how not to sign a SOFA agreement (which would have kept a U.S. pulse on the security situation in Iraq) ISIL/ISIS was a mere fragment and not a significant threat in Iraq.
Then the long churning and long in development regime change agenda against Assad had its debut as the “Syrian opposition”. It seems the west’s role (along with some of the Gulf States, the Saudis and Turkey) was even more badly figured out than was the west’s aid to the Mujahadeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It’s as if they all figured that “this time” Assad would just lie down and take defeat from a mass civil uprising, and would not call on every marker he could from Hezbolla, Iran and Russia.
The resulting destabilization of Syria was not made by the west for ISIS, but yes ISIS stepped into the maelstrom for the opportunities it provided - working experience, recruitment, opportunistic acquisition of weapons and other equipment, use of captured oil and oil fields, and a theater of war that was chaos - many groups all vying for “top dog” positions against Assad and in that taking aim at each other from time to time. It was ripe for an outfit like ISIS.
How did the U.S. “aid” ISIS? By the things it bungled, or allowed to be bungled which came primarily from its intent and desire to NOT function as a nation at war, but relying on third parties whom it pretended it could vet responsibly. That was the same mistake it made in Afghanistan, against the Soviets.
So point one. Obama and Maliki jointly dropped the ball on the security situation in Iraq. That gave ISIS opportunity one - it was able to step up recruitment in Iraq as Iraq’s defense posture slacked off and Mailki started creating Iraqi Sunni opposition to his government as he governed more and more like a Shia leader than an Iraqi leader.
Point two. The blunder that sent Syria (which had been a contained and manageable security situation for the west) into massive destabilization gave ISIS an active war theater to move into as a means to becoming stronger and gain a force that could go back to Iraq stronger than it left.
How did the U.S. aid ISIS? It blundered and it was as bad as the blunder that had ceded the military effort against the Soviets in Afghanistan to Sunni Muslim militias.
When you think you are using someone else to help fight something, and you really don’t give a damn about what is at the heart of their interests, you better be prepared to recognize them as potential adversaries, if not already adversaries. Alliances of convenience are dangerous and mostly so when you ignore just who that alliance is with. That, a whole lot more than by design, as far ss how the west has blundered into situations that proved to be a gain for violent fundamentalist Sunni outfits.
Most of the conspiracy theories have a lot of implied innuendo and little facts.
If anything, Erdogan built ISIS.
I won’t deny how Erdogan helped ISIS, or how there is less than six degrees of religious difference between ISIS and Erdogan. But ISIS was aided by many factors and conditions, not one alone which could have built ISIS by itself. I have no doubt that if ISIS could not have sold oil to Turkey that the corruption throughout the Middle East would have found them another partner in that.
No ISIS is a product of McCain, Hillary, CIA, the Saudi government, etc.
Right. I know that.
No.
What I meant is that the use of the acronym ‘isil’ is generally used by the islamic state, and by obama, as a way to say that Israel does not legitimately exist, or should not exist at all. When it is used, as obama often did, it is a direct slap in the face to Israel.
I suspect the PC police did want it to replace ‘isis’, but not enough people adopted it - or not so far at least.
ISIL means the elimination of Israel.
Obama and the Obama State Department used it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.