Hillary plans to arm terrorists in Syria, bomb Assad and start wars with Iran, Russia and China

ISIS wouldn’t exist if Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq in 2003

There were no al-Qaeda or any other Wahhabi terrorists in Iraq prior to Bush’s invasion. Saddam hanged any that tried.

Saddam ran a secular Ba’athist regime and had to keep a lid on any religious extremists to remain in power. Saddam and Osama Bin Laden were ideological enemies. The stories put out by Cheney and co about possible links between Saddam and Bin Laden were always completely ridiculous and very obviously complete fabrications.

Al-Qaeda would never have gained a foothold in Iraq and ISIS wouldn’t exist if Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq and there would be far fewer terrorists elsewhere in the world than there are now.

The recruitment of more Wahhabi / al-Qaeda type terrorists was a deliberate and expected result of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Dick Cheney knew there would be massive sectarian violence between the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds, with Iran in the mix, if Saddam was toppled.

Here he is saying it in 1994 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD9kYK9I&feature=share

Cheney knew that the American invasion and resultant sectarian violence would attract foreign Islamic extremists to fight with the displaced Sunni minority. Which is exactly what happened with Wahhabi Sharia supporting extremists and Muslim Brotherhood traveling to Iraq to fight the Americans, from all over North Africa, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Syria.
(It was also a specifically stated aim of Osama Bin Laden to embroil the US in a protracted war somewhere in the Middle East to “bankrupt the infidels” with huge war costs. The Neocon wars have current estimated total costs of more than $6tn to the US taxpayer or $60,000 for each and every American household.)

The invasion of Iraq by foreign extremists radicalized angry Iraqis and enabled recruitment from Sunni areas which were now being brutalized by Shia militias supported by the newly installed Shia dominated government in Baghdad and by the stories of mass torture emanating out of US run prisons like Abu Ghraib.

The Islamists joined with the angry and now unemployed former members of Saddam’s recently disbanded army to form an effective fighting force in what became AQI (al-qaeda in Iraq) and which went through several re-brandings to eventually become ISIS in Syria. Many of the ISIS & AQI commanders past and present were former officers in Saddam’s secular Ba’athist army.

Assad in Syria also ran a secular Ba’athist regime in Syria. He was also the enemy of al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Assad’s father had put down a large uprising of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria in the 1980’s, killing ~20,000. Assad was worried that violence in Iraq would again stoke up the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and co-operated with America against Islamic radicals with things like the CIA’s rendition for torture from 2002. Assad opposed Bush’s invasion of Iraq – he knew it would cause massive violence in the region same as Cheney did.

Bush/Cheney plotted a coup against Assad in 2005 which failed, but some senior Syrian general(s) got killed. Assad fell out with Bush (unsurprisingly). Bush/Cheney then planned to invade Syria but with the US Army stretched in Iraq they were in no position to mount another massive invasion.

The PNAC (Neocon) plans to redraw the map of the Middle East with invasions and regime changes were in place long before 9/11.

Former NATO commander Wesley Clarke says he was told in the Pentagon, 2 weeks after 9/11 that Bush/Cheney planned to regime change 7 countries in 5 years – Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Somalia and Sudan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

If you want to know more about the Iraq invasion, PNAC and the Neocon Wars its in here:-

The Real Reasons the US Invaded Iraq in 2003
http://ian56.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-lies-still-being-told-in-media.html
None of the mainstream media have ever published the real reasons why Dick Cheney and PNAC wanted  to invade Iraq.

The above forceful advocates of the disastrous invasion of Iraq are still pushing for regime change wars in the Middle East and many of them have come out in open support of Hillary Clinton with her warmongering agenda, e.g. Robert Kagan and Norman Podhoretz.
Bill Kristol is doing all that he can to oppose Trump by trying to organize 3rd Party or “independent” Trump spoilers in order to get Hillary elected.

Iran

Bush/Cheney also wanted to start a war with Iran in 2007/08 but this was called off when the US’s own National Intelligence Estimate of all 16 US intelligence agencies (correctly) concluded that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 – which has remained the case ever since.
Arguments that Iran is a threat from WMDs (then and now) are complete bullshit – just like Saddam’s non-existent WMDs were in 2002.

George Bush was “angry” when US intelligence said Iran hadn’t got an active nuclear weapons program because it stymied his plans for war with Iran – extracts from his book “Decision Points”
http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/iran/iran-bush-on-nie.htm

New York Times December 4th 2007: U.S. Finds Iran Halted Its Nuclear Arms Effort in 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/world/middleeast/04intel.html

Hillary Clinton, if elected, has promised to start a war with Iran to attempt regime change. Presumably this will be attempted by manufacturing lies about Iran “breaking” the terms of Obama’s recently signed nuclear deal, as the Haim Saban funded Brookings Institute has already suggested.
The Head of the Brookings Institute, Strobe Talbot, is a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton.
The Brookings Institute includes extreme Neocon and PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan (who has endorsed Hillary) as one of its senior Fellows – it is the Dem Neocon equivalent of the extremist GOP Neocon “think tank” for pro war propaganda – the American Enterprise Institute.

Hillary Clinton armed al-Qaeda terrorists in Libya and Syria to topple Gaddafi and Assad

Libya

As part of the continuing PNAC plans to replace any regime that opposed Israel and because Gaddafi was gaining traction with his plans to trade and sell oil in Gold Dinars and not US Dollars, the CIA and Qatar instigated the start of an armed uprising against Gaddafi in February 2011.
Saudi Arabia was also heavily involved.

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists (who later founded ISIS in Libya) were recruited from the area around Benghazi and Derna. They were armed and trained from CIA bases in the West of Egypt and from Chad.

How and Why the Libyan Civil War of 2011 Happened
http://ian56.blogspot.com/2014/07/why-libyan-civil-war-of-2011-happened.html

Libya is now a failed state and a haven for ISIS and al-Qaeda terrorists.
Hillary Clinton, together with John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Susan Rice and Samantha Power were the most forceful advocates for the Libya “No Fly Zone” and the arming of the al-Qaeda supporting terrorist “rebels” of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

Syria

As above, the US had been plotting regime change in Syria from 2005, by encouraging internal dissent.
This has been backed up by a batch of Wikileaks released cables which outline the activities, of among others, Robert Ford the former US Ambassador to Syria (until 2014).

Legitimate internal, and for the most part peaceful, protests against Assad calling for political reforms from February 2011 were exploited by the US and turned into an armed uprising in the far South and North of the country through the use of armed radicals and snipers shooting protestors.
However by around September 2011, Assad was well on the way to defeating the mostly Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda “rebels”, until the US and its Gulf allies started large scale arming of these Wahhabi terrorists.
Lots of the early weapons came from Gaddafi’s stockpiles and were shipped out of Libya from Benghazi from 4th Quarter 2011 in a CIA covert black op with Ambassador Chris Stevens acting as a liaison between Libyan terrorist groups and Turkey.

At some point in late(ish) 2013, there was an internal disagreement within al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) and the faction now called ISIS/ISIL/Daesh split away and proceeded to take control of Raqqa in Syria and Fallujah in Iraq in January 2014.
It is not wrong to say that Obama and Hillary Clinton are the founders of ISIS, but it is incomplete because the chain of events goes directly back to the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Virginia State Senator Richard Black: The Origins of the Syrian War
https://www.sott.net/article/318592-Virginia-State-Senator-Richard-Black-The-Origins-of-the-Syrian-War

Covert CIA arms smuggling to terrorists in Syria from Libya and the attack on Benghazi
http://ian56.blogspot.com/2015/11/arms-smuggling-to-syrian-terrorists-and.html

Obama and Hillary Clinton knew from the very beginning that the vast majority of their “moderate rebels” in Syria were actually al-Qaeda linked, Sharia supporting, head chopping Wahhabi nutjobs.
This has been confirmed with the release of a Defense Intelligence Agency memo written in August 2012:-

A Defense Intelligence Agency memo shows WILLFUL COMPLICITY of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the rise of ISIS
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4xg6vl/lets_correct_the_record_here_a_defense/

The memo can be found here

This DIA memo was partially declassified under FOIA by Judicial Watch in May 2015, and was written and circulated within the US government in August 2012.

  • The memo states : ”THE SALAFIST, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA”.
  • It also states that : ”THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION”.
  • Elsewhere, it says : ”OPPOSITION FORCES ARE TRYING TO CONTROL THE EASTERN AREAS (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), ADJACENT TO THE WESTERN IRAQI PROVINCES (MOSUL AND ANBAR), IN ADDITION TO NEIGHBORING TURKISH BORDERS. WESTERN COUNTRIES, THE GULF STATES AND TURKEY ARE SUPPORTING THESE EFFORTS”.
  • And also : “IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS 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”
  • And finally : “ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA”.

So, to review: US intelligence knew that the anti-Assad opposition were primarily made up of radical Islamists (i.e. Salafists, AQ, and the Muslim Brotherhood). The memo also states that the West (which would include the US), the Gulf States, and Turkey support this opposition and their efforts to control Eastern Syria. The memo does not split hairs and delineate that we only support the “moderate elements”. In fact, that term or related terms describing moderate rebels appear nowhere in the memo. Underscoring that the US was supporting the opposition regardless of its makeup, the last two passages cited make clear that the “supporting powers” (elsewhere defined as the West, Gulf States, & Turkey) actually want a Salafist principality (Islamic State) to emerge in Eastern Syria, because it would undermine Assad’s hold on Syria.
The “moderate rebels” narrative is just not present in the DIA memo. The moderate rebels only seem to exist in State Department PR, White House PR, and mainstream media. If the moderate rebels ever did exist at this stage in the Syrian War, they were likely just cutouts for funneling money and weapons into the arms of Al Nusra (i.e. AQ), ISIS, and other radical Islamists.

Some people say that the creation of ISIS and the arming of this and other Islamist jihadist groups were an unintended consequence of Obama’s and Hillary’s policy, and not a goal of that policy itself. But can we trust that it was merely an unintended consequence? The DIA memo makes clear that the Syrian opposition, even though it was dominated by Islamist extremists, was supported by the West. This support even included support for their efforts to take Eastern Syria and establish a Salafist principality (Islamic State) there. And while the memo doesn’t specify if this support was material support or just “cheering them on”, there is an abundance of evidence documenting that US arms ended up in the hands of ISIS and other terrorists in Syria/Iraq.

The Obama administration and their cheerleaders/apologists can always claim “unintended consequences” as way to give themselves plausible deniability, but how plausible are their denials in practice?

It doesn’t take a genius to see that the consequences of the Obama administration’s actions were entirely predictable. Even if they did support factions they deemed ‘moderate’, did they not expect that weapons, aid, and money would eventually get snatched up by the most powerful forces driving the opposition in Syria, i.e. Al Qaeda, Salafists, and the Muslim Brotherhood? Were they not warned by the DIA that continued support for the opposition would result in a “Salafist principality” emerging in Eastern Syria (a warning which unfortunately turned out to be true)? And what was their expected endgame for Syria? Even if they were able to topple Assad by supporting the so-called “moderate elements”, did they expect that these same moderates would assume control of Syria after Assad being deposed? No reasonable person could expect such a thing. Even if we trust the administration’s “moderate rebels” claims, the DIA memo makes clear that these factions were outmatched by the larger players driving the opposition, the Islamist extremist factions. In other words, the Obama administration knew these groups were the main composition of the opposition, and yet did not withdraw their support.

A reasonable observer would come to no other conclusion than that the Obama administration’s intended policy was to topple Assad by any means necessary, including by instrumentalizing extremist groups for this purpose, such as the ones that would declare themselves as ISIS in 2013. This policy also meant that as long as it was necessary for carrying out regime change in Syria, they did not care if extremists took control of the post-Assad country. Such an eventuality, by the way, would have almost certainly resulted in massacres of Shiites, Christians, and Yazidis (the State Department even admits now that ISIS is engaging in genocide against these groups).

Further resources pertaining to the memo

The DIA memo described above has existed in the public domain since May 2015, when Judicial Watch wrote this press release.

If you are looking for a good way to share this info in an easily digestible format, journalist Ben Swann gave an excellent 4-minute summary of this memo and its implications.

General Michael Flynn, who was the head of the DIA at the time the memo was written, also corroborated this interpretation of the memo in an interview on Al Jazeera television, naming the Obama administration’s Syria policy as a “willful decision” made in spite of the intelligence revealing the true nature of the Syrian opposition. Full transcript of Flynn interview here. Keep in mind, Flynn gave this interview as the former DIA head, and not as a Trump surrogate. The interview was given 9 July 2015 which is only 23 days after Trump announced his candidacy — long before Flynn was acting as an advisor for Trump (this was first reported Feb 26, 2016).

Additional substantiation

If it wasn’t already evident from the DIA’s intelligence assessments, it was reported in December 2012 that 29 different opposition groups had pledged fealty to Jabhat Al-Nusra, a known Al Qaeda affiliate operating in Syria.

Shockingly, despite the foreknowledge that the anti-Assad Syrian opposition was primarily driven by extremist factions such as Al Qaeda, Salafists, and the Muslim Brotherhood, the administration continued their assistance to the opposition. In June 2014, Obama requested $500 million to train and arm “vetted” members of the Syrian opposition, and later signed the $1.1 trillion dollar omnibus which contained this allocation.

Separate lines of evidence also corroborate that the Obama administration is complicit in enabling Islamist extremists in Syria, indicating that they trained, armed, and aided ISIS and other terrorist groups fighting in Syria.

Under scrutiny, it was also clear that the administration’s preferences were to favor ISIS over Assad’s government. You can see State spokesman Mark Toner here refusing to state that the Obama administration would prefer to see Assad’s soldiers to retake Palmyra rather than it remaining under ISIS control. The subtext here is, of course, that given a choice between rooting for Assad or for ISIS, the administration chose to root for ISIS.

The other DIA memo : Hillary Clinton, the CIA, and covert weapons smuggling into Syria from Benghazi

Hillary Clinton was always one of the biggest administration proponents of arming the Syrian opposition. Moreso even than Obama! But there was also significant resistance to such proposals from people like Senator Rand Paul. He has contended in the past that arming these factions, many of which we had no idea who they even were, would probably lead to slaughter of Christians in Syria. Unfortunately, he turned out to be correct.

The question is, if Clinton desired so strongly to arm the anti-Assad forces, would she have allowed herself to be stymied? Would she have limited her options to overt, legal means? Or could she have collaborated with the CIA to do so? The CIA and State Department have had a very close relationship ever since the Dulles brothers, this is a fact. And the CIA have been involved in more regime changes than you could probably count on your fingers and toes together. Here’s the other thing — we know now that there was a CIA annex in Benghazi just minutes away from Ambassador Stevens’s Consulate. Benghazi had a strong CIA presence.

A separate DIA memo released under FOIA by Judicial Watch sheds light on possible CIA-assisted arms smuggling of former Gaddafi weapons caches into Syria to arm the opposition. Fox News reported on it after the memo was made public in May 2015. Even back in January 2013 though, before the DIA memo was public, Rand Paul famously questioned Hillary Clinton about this when she was giving testimony to the Senate under oath. While she denied any knowledge of arms shipments out of Benghazi, the DIA memo (written in October 2012) was indeed copied to the Secretary of State, indicating Hillary probably lied under oath here in order to hide the truth. Rand Paul recently reaffirmed his belief that the CIA was assisting with weapons transfers from Libya to Syria at Hillary’s request.

Hopefully more information regarding Hillary’s role in covert arms smuggling will be uncovered in the future.

The verdict

ISIS would not exist but for the machinations of Obama and Hillary in Libya/Syria/Iraq.

Despite the warnings from their intelligence agencies, Obama and Hillary still armed/aided/trained/funded the Syrian opposition in order to topple Assad.

They do bear responsibility for creating ISIS. George W. Bush undoubtedly deserves blame too, for invading Iraq in the first place. Paul “Jerry” Bremer does as well for how the occupation was conducted. However, ISIS’s rise was not 100% in the cards at the time Obama took office. Hillary and Obama midwifed it into existence.

Their policies helped ISIS expand into Eastern Syria, which in turn helped ISIS to launch offensives on Western Iraq.

Moreover, Obama and Hillary did the Libya regime change, another terrible idea, which is part of the ISIS story as well. Due to the poor security situation in post-Gaddafi Libya, and given that much of the country’s territory was taken by radical Islamists (who comprised a large part of the Libyan rebels we backed there), post-Gaddafi Libya was a jihadist playground, and it served as a crucial nidus for the nascent Islamic State.

Trump’s contentions that Obama and Hillary are the “founders” of ISIS may have been a bit of an exaggeration, but it falls into the category of truthful hyperbole. There is undeniable evidence that they were willfully complicit in aiding ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria, in order to further their primary goal in the region — which was never eliminating ISIS, but rather, deposing Assad.

Further Info

1) Western media consistently, and sometimes even up to this day, have repeated the mantra that “Assad belongs to the alawi sect, an offshoot of Shia Islam, and fights against a largely Sunni insurgency”. This is exactly what then-AQI used as an instigation tool to fuel defections from Assad’s army (which was, and still is, majority Sunni – he must be so sectarian, right ?)
2) The so-called Free Syrian Army, which has been recognised, supplied and armed by dozens of pro-opposition countries, ceded two cities in Eastern Syria to the jihadists. You guessed it – Raqqa and Deir Ezzor. That same FSA took control of all the oil fields) of eastern Syria that later funded ISIS. You’d be made to believe that ISIS launched “an offensive” to take these territories from the rebels, but the truth is, most rebels had already switched to the Nusra front (Syrian AQ), which in turn gave up its positions in Deir Ezzor to ISIS…or the FSA straight away endorsed or defected to ISIS, ([2])(http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/07/08/us-backed-moderate-free-syrian-army-factions-join-islamic-state-terror-group/) at around the same time.
When you ask yourself how ISIS took control of Raqqa, always remember the answer: the “Free Syrian Army” took it and then defected to ISIS. The list of previously FSA-held towns that are now unsurprisingly in ISIS hands is very long: Al-Bukamal, Al-Bab, Manbij (until today)…
3) There was nothing secular or moderate to the rebels, ever. They have had ISIS levels of brutality since day one. In 2012 the FSA captured a border post, then chopped off the arms and legs of an army officer and executed another 22 soldiers. And, as early as 2011, car bombs have been used against the government, a trademark of AQ and ISIS. Back then the Syrian government blamed AQ, but the rebels said the government bombed its own civilians and Western media were quick to carry their claims.
These are Hillary and Obama’s “moderates”. The same thing as ISIS.

Hillary’s Plans for Syria if she is elected

Hillary has always been the most forceful advocate of arming the “rebels”, i.e. al-Qaeda and ISIS Sharia supporting, head chopping terrorists in Syria.

Hillary has stated that she would pursue “a more aggressive” policy in Syria to topple Assad.
This “aggressive policy” has also been repeated by Hillary’s likely pick for Defense Secretary – Neocon Michele Flournoy.

These plans include:-

Bombing Assad.

Setting up a “No Fly Zone” to protect the US backed terrorists from Syrian and Russian airstrikes.
Former Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, has previously stated this would require up to 70,000 troops to enforce.
It would also put these troops in direct confrontation with Assad’s Syrian Army and nuclear armed Russia.
Hillary Clinton’s insane plan for a No Fly Zone in Syria
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/12/hillary-clintons-insane-plan-for-a-no-fly-zone.html#

Supplying more arms to al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorists as Hillary did while she was previously Secretary of State between 2011 and January 2013.

If Assad were ever toppled it would put the whole of Syria in the hands of Sharia supporting terrorists who want to massacre anyone that isn’t a Wahhabi extremist – moderate sunni Muslims, Christians, Druze, Shiites, Alawites etc.

Syria would become Libya 2.0

Russia has already demonstrated that it will not allow this to happen with its intervention in Syria’s War from September 30th 2015 (following Assad’s agreement / request for military assistance).
Russia has recently reaffirmed its commitment with recent statements about expanding its airbase near Latakia in Syria and making it permanent by constructing more infrastructure.
Russia also seems to be ramping up its bombing operations against ISIS and al-Qaeda linked terrorists.

Russia’s now joined at the hip partner, China is also waiting in the wings to support Russia in Syria and elsewhere if required.
China is concerned about preventing the spread of Islamic terrorism in the “stans” of Central Asia and the Westernmost Chinese province of Xinjiang, which would disrupt its plans for economic development and its “New Silk Road” from China to Europe.
The prevention of Syria being taken over by ISIS / al-Qaeda terrorists is therefore a vital strategic interest  for China.

Former CIA chief Michael Morell, who is angling for a job in a future Clinton administration,  made some reckless comments about wanting to covertly kill Russians and Iranians in Syria that will only add to Russian and Chinese determination to stop Syria being taken over by US backed terrorists.

Does Michael Morell think that Russia and China are going to stand aside and do nothing while the US arms terrorists, bombs Assad and targets Russian and Iranian troops and aircraft?

Michael Morell’s statements succinctly demonstrate the insanity of Hillary’s supporters who are willing to risk a hot war and nuclear confrontation with Russia and China over what is a non strategic interest for the US in Syria.

They are in direct opposition to Trump’s statements about talking to Russia about co-operation and joint efforts to fight and defeat ISIS, which is in the mutual interest of both ordinary Americans and ordinary Russians (and 99% of the rest of the planet).

If you want to understand the real reasons for the escalating conflict between the US and Russia/China you will need to read this:-

Geopolitics – China, Russia and the end of American Hegemony
http://ian56.blogspot.com/2015/05/geopolitics-us-china-and-russia-main.html

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s