ISIS :”A completely fabricated enemy”

abu_bakr_al_baghdadi-cia_asset

Rather than listening to the propaganda that the mainstream media has to spin in order to continue a War in the Middle East, listen to the sources themselves, who helped manifest this “New terrorist threat”.

Press TV:Former CIA contractor Steven Kelley says that the ISIL terrorist group is a completely fabricated enemy created and funded by the United States.“The funding is completely from the United States and its allies and for people to think that this enemy is something that needs to be attacked in Syria or Iraq is a farce because obviously this is something that we create it, we control and only now it has become inconvenient for us to attack this group as a legitimate enemy,” Kelley added.

He made the remarks as US President Barack Obama is under pressure to seek congressional approval before expanding Washington’s military air campaign against IS targets from Iraq into neighboring Syria. “If you want to get to the root of the problem and remove this organization, the first thing they need to do is to remove the funding and take care of entities responsible for the creation of this group,” Kelley said.

ISIS using CIA-supplied weapons: Dave Lindorff An award-winning American investigative journalist says the Islamic State terrorist group is using weapons supplied by the CIA. “We know that the government in the US wants to go in and attack ISIS, which is in itself kind of remarkable when you consider that a lot of the weapons they are using were provided by the CIA, or indirectly by the CIA through Saudi Arabia to the ISIS to fight Bashar Assad”,“Now we are turning around and saying we have to attack them,”.

U.S. General: “We Helped Build ISIS”: During an appearance on Fox News, General Thomas McInerney acknowledged that the United States “helped build ISIS” as a result of the group obtaining weapons from the Benghazi consulate in Libya which was attacked by jihadists in September 2012.Asked what he thought of the idea of arming so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels after FSA militants kidnapped UN peacekeepers in the Golan Heights, McInerney said the policy had been a failure.

As previously documented, many of the United States’ biggest allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey and Qatar, have all bankrolled and armed ISIS militants.

Globalists Push EU-style “Union” for The Middle East

superstatesmap

As if globalist scheming had not yet caused enough death and destruction in the Middle East, the global government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations and various outfits associated with the secretive Bilderberg group are now pushing a radical new plot for the region: a European Union-style regional regime to rule over the Arab, Turkish, Kurdish, and other peoples who live there. The sought-after “Middle Eastern Union” would put populations ranging from Turkey and Jordan to Libya and Egypt under a single authority.

If the plot moves forward, like in other areas, it would usurp from the peoples of the region their right to self-government and national sovereignty. It would also advance the longtime establishment goal of setting up regional regimes on the path to a more formal system of “global governance.” Already, the peoples of Europe, Africa, South America, Asia, and other regions have had self-styled regional “authorities” imposed on them against their will.

A true “union” to rule over the broader Middle East and North Africa, though, would represent a major step forward in the ongoing regionalization of power around the world. Using a wide range of pretexts to advance the scheme, top globalist outfits and mouthpieces claim such a regional government would solve myriad real and imagined problems. However, with the plot being pushed hard by the CFR and various globalist propaganda organs such as the Financial Times, a U.K. newspaper that is always well represented at the shadowy Bilderberg summits, there is good reason to be skeptical at the very least.

See Also: The U.S State dept plan to divide and rule Iraq

Via WTFRLY

Original Article Here

ISIS (Islamic State) Another Manufactured “Terror” threat?

ISIScollage

Just as Al-Qeada was a U.S intelligence agency creation, the reports are coming in that ISIS is yet another manufactured terrorist threat. They are given massive amounts of funding by our “allied” intelligence agencies, and have even funded and trained by the U.S directly itself.

-Earlier this month Nabil Na’eem, the founder of the Islamic Democratic Jihad Party and former top al-Qaeda commander, told the Beirut-based pan-Arab TV station al-Maydeen all current al-Qaeda affiliates, including ISIS, work for the CIA.

-In June a Jordanian official told Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily ISIS members were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan. In 2012 it was reported the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels

ISIS Leader funded/trained by Israeli Mossad

Baghdaditrained

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi “took intensive military training for a whole year in the hands of Mossad, besides courses in theology and the art of speech,” according to Gulf Daily News, a Bahrainian source. According to a document recently released by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, now the Islamic State, is an intelligence asset.The real name of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is “Simon Elliott.”
The so-called “Elliot” was recruited by the Israeli Mossad and was trained in espionage and psychological warfare against Arab and Islamic societies.

Al-Baghdadi was reportedly a “civilian internee” at Camp Bucca, a U.S. military detention facility near Umm Qasr, Iraq. James Skylar Gerrond, a former U.S. Air Force security forces officer and a compound commander at Camp Bucca in 2006 and 2007, said earlier this month the camp “created a pressure cooker for extremism.”“Circumstantial evidence suggests that al-Baghdadi may have been mind-controlled while held prisoner by the US military in Iraq,” writes Dr. Kevin Barrett.

Sen. Lindsey Graham to Congress: ‘Let’s Just Blow Up Iran’

grahambomb

Is this a signal that Iran was the goal of Syrian intervention all along? Senator Graham has been warning that if we don’t bomb Syria, it will lead to war with Iran within six months.The Republican Senator from South Carolina announced on Saturday that he is going to officially approach Congress to seek military authorization for a strike on Iran to destroy the nation’s nuclear program.

As Reported: Graham’s language is clear:

“Graham, speaking on Gov. Mike Huckabee’s Fox News program, said the move will work to make sure we send ‘a clear signal that this debacle called Syria doesn’t mean we’re confused about Iran.’”

Graham has a long history of warmongering, especially when it comes to Iran. Back in 2010 at an AIPAC meeting, the Senator told the pro-Israel lobby that, “The Congress has your back” and Israel is “our best friend in the world.” He went on to say “all options must be on the table” and “you know exactly what I’m talking about” when it comes to potentially bombing Iran.

neocon

In addition, Graham’s top campaign contributors include Boeing and General Electric — key military-industrial complex players that would profit heavily off any war. Likewise, the Senator has shown his readiness to abandon the Constitution and Bill of Rights, particularly under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), to strip suspects of due process rights in the name of the neverending War on Terror

Full Article: Truthstream Media

Syria: Target of International Bankers

Syriatargetnext

In an August 2013 article titled “ Larry Summers and the Secret ‘End-game’ Memo,” Greg Palast posted evidence of a secret late-1990s plan devised by Wall Street and U.S. Treasury officials to open banking to the lucrative derivatives business. To pull this off required the relaxation of banking regulations not just in the US but globally. The vehicle to be used was the Financial Services Agreement of the World Trade Organization.

The “end-game” would require not just coercing support among WTO members but taking down those countries refusing to join. Some key countries remained holdouts from the WTO, including Iraq, Libya, Iran and Syria.

In these Islamic countries, banks are largely state-owned; and “usury” – charging rent for the “use” of money – is viewed as a sin, if not a crime. That puts them at odds with the Western model of rent extraction by private middlemen. Publicly-owned banks are also a threat to the mushrooming derivatives business, since governments with their own banks don’t need interest rate swaps, credit default swaps, or investment-grade ratings by private rating agencies in order to finance their operations.

Forty percent of banks globally are publicly-owned. They are largely in the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China which house forty percent of the global population. They also escaped the 2008 credit crisis, but they at least made a show of conforming to Western banking rules. This was not true of the “rogue” Islamic nations, where usury was forbidden by Islamic teaching. To make the world safe for usury, these rogue states had to be silenced by other means. Having failed to succumb to economic coercion, they wound up in the crosshairs of the powerful US military.

Is it a coincidence that these countries were named by U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.) in a 2007 “Democracy Now” interview as the new “rogue states” being targeted for take down after September 11, 2001? He said that about 10 days after 9-11, he was told by a general that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq. Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

Via Disinfo

Original Article Here

Chemical Warfare in Syria – Staged to Incriminate the Regime and Create the Pretext for U.S. Military Action?

Syria_GasMasks

Days after evidence of a chemical attack in Syria was exposed to the world, foreign governments have been beating their war-drums and taking steps toward military intervention to topple the Syrian government, leaving critics to wonder if the al-Assad regime was truly responsible for the attacks.

Reporters for the French publication Le Monde described the experience of being gassed with an unknown type of chemical weapon. The weapons were allegedly used by Syrian government forces against rebel troops, with repeated attacks taking place right outside Damascus during April and May of this year. The attacks were carried out with a startling degree of accuracy and effectiveness, the colorless and odorless agent delivered mysteriously via an aerosol canister.

A much clearer picture of the scope and detail of the chemicals effects was provided this week by a Medecines Sans Frontiers (MSF) / Doctors Without Borders press release, which reports treating “…approximately 3,600 patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms in less than three hours on the morning of Wednesday, August 21, 2013. Of those patients, 355 reportedly died.”

syriachemwardead

A common sense check should make it clear that Syria doesn’t have the capability or desire to execute chemical attacks on it’s own people. Reports of the chemical’s effects sound similar to Tabun, a nerve agent developed by the Germans during WWII. The U.S. had a Tabun program “decades ago” which was ostensibly cancelled. Tabun is the agent allegedly used by Hussein against the Kurds, and a recent article reveals the CIA helped him do it

It should also be noted that a majority of the Syrian “rebel” opposition is funded and armed by the C.I.A and other western intelligence agencies. As well as having access to chemical weapons, and a stated intent to use them and blame the Syrian regime .

Why would Bashar Al-Assad risk regime suicide by attacking his own people with chemical weapons, knowing full well that the United States would use any such attack as an excuse for military adventurism? Wouldn’t any leader have to be certifiably insane to use chemical weapons on his own capitol city?

A current Reuters article makes the economics of this conflict clear. Syria is a net importer of oil products, but because of US sanctions the Syrians are forced to deal with Iran and Russia in order to fill their domestic needs. This puts them on the “black” oil market, at odds with the intentions of those who back the U.S. petro dollar.

Original Article: PoliceStateUsa.com

C.I.A. Officialy admits Role in 1953 Iran Coup

iran-coup-1953

August 19th marked the 60th anniversary of the coup in Iran which deposed prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he restricted the flow of oil to the West.However, it is only now, six decades on, that the CIA has finally admitted that it was behind the revolution, which was one of the most significant landmarks in modern Iranian history.

It has long been widely acknowledged that the U.S. and British authorities were behind Mossadegh’s overthrow – one factor behind the anti-Western sentiments shared by many in Iran which led to the 1979 Islamist revolution in the country.

The operation, codenamed ‘TPAJAX’, was ‘conceived and approved at the highest levels of government’, the documents – entitled ‘The Battle for Iran’ and compiled in the 1970s – reveal.

The agency admits that the coup, which saw the Shah persuaded to sack Mossadegh and replace him with Fazlollah Zahedi, was a ‘last resort’ and a ‘policy of desperation’.It took place on August 19, 1953, after negotiations between Britain and Iran over securing UK access to Iranian oil broke down.

The Central Intelligence Agency had successfully pressured the weak monarch to participate in the coup, while bribing street thugs, clergy, politicians and Iranian army officers to take part in a propaganda campaign against Mosaddegh and his government. the agency released documents to the National Security Archive in which it admits that the coup ‘was carried out under CIA direction as an act of U.S. foreign policy’.

The internal dossier says: ‘It was the potential of those risks to leave Iran open to Soviet aggression that compelled the United States in planning and executing TPAJAX.’ that prospect was apparently unacceptable to the U.S., as it would lead to a Soviet backlash and the West would permanently lose access to Iran’s oil supply.

(And of course a democratically elected government had to be overthrown, because we can let those commies get OUR Oil)

Original Article Here