[Emptyskin]

Why Brzezinski is responsible for ISIS and how the US got totally played and now won't admit it

It was he who first foresaw the power of combating nationalism with religious fanaticism. It was he who first put into motion the strategy of importing Islamic fundamentalists from everywhere on Earth into Pakistan, for reasons of deniability, arming them, and then sending them to fight the USSR.

After the withdraw of Soviet forces in Afghanistan, and the apparent success of the mujahedin, the group fragmented. This fragmentation saw the spread of various permutations of Islamic fundamentalism mixed with fugitives and exiles from their various origin states, and elements of drug cartels on at least four continents into the Middle East.

However, after neglect (some might say downright hostility) from the West, the organization of these forces has been the purview of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been financing Wahhabi causes through their proxies of charities and other states, namely Qatar. These various fragmented groups still appear to assist each other despite their diffusion in the Middle East. When it became apparent that Libya was up for grabs their forces swelled. This was seen by the US and NATO as an opportunity to use these people as a proxy once again against Gaddafi. Some prominent figures already had tabs being kept on them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world ... sorts.html

There were many governments that needed toppling in the Middle East, governments not friendly at the time to Saudi Arabia, the US or Israel, and weapons and troops were in short order. The fall of Qaddafi and the West's 'no boots' approach left Qaddafi's arms stockpiles up for grabs and all of those poor political prisoners in need of freedom and purpose. But such a precious commodity was surely not going to be lost under the supervision of the United States.

As far as guns are concerned, well, the US needs to know what those are and where they are going. So it wanted to middleman a weapons transfer. Middlemen are always appreciated and always well liked by the others in the transactions. Middlemen rarely if ever are self interested with nothing to really offer the other participants. This middleman simply needed to see who was "legitimate and who was not."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... pposition/

He provides liaison services to the groups for over one year. The purpose was to vet the leaders to see who the US could trust meanwhile providing tactical air support for the militias slowly taking over Libya. Come, 9/11/2012 and the US finds out that it can't actually trust whoever it was they were trusting but it gains deniability once again for further operations elsewhere - the US does not appear to notice that it has been played. A new problem quickly presented itself when Obama's mettle came to be seen to be tested after his comments about a "red line" concerning the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

It has been said that the "red line threat" was revoked after it became clear that Assad had not used chemical weapons, but that Turkish and Saudi intelligence had provided them to the Al-Nusra Front (a branch of al qaeda) in an attempt at manipulation.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m- ... e-rat-line

The failed lure leads to the prompting of moving small arms into Syria from Libya. This task was accomplished through organizing the Libyan rebels with Qatar air and boat resources to help distribute arms through Turkey into Syria.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/22/world ... d=all&_r=0

In April the much beloved Senator John McCain, the cunning strategist, made an appearance with the leaders in the Free Syrian Army. He uses the opportunity as a photo opportunity, as do his hosts. Little does he know that the people he is meeting with are people who had been responsible for half a dozen prison liberations in the Middle East. Libya and Syria have been repressive regimes, yes, but also cooperative in the war on terror each holding rendition prisons that the CIA would occasionally make use of. The prisons were full of suspected terrorists and former torture victims. One of these men, meeting on behalf of the Free Syrian Army, meeting with John McCain, had already founded ISIS and had been working with the al-Nura Front to liberate prisons; this man sat with John McCain and smiled through the meeting knowing that the US is providing diplomatic support to him. Sure, looks to me like the US got played again. Got played in Libya. Got played in Syria.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article185085.html

Judge for yourself the success of this strategy of arming proxies and attempting to manipulate them, but consider a phrase and a story. The phrase is "lilly white." The story (roughly taken from the movie Training Day):

"One day a man walks out of his front door and see a snail on his porch. The snail is wearing glasses and walking slow and smiling with his hat and his house nearby. This man picks the snail up and smashes the little house, breaks the little glasses and throws the snail out into the yard. It takes months of being hurt, bleeding, and recovering for the snail to crawl back up to his spot on the porch, but he manages. Then one day the man walks over the snail to his car and he notices the snail looking at him. So, he turns and says, "What the f**k are you looking at?"

[wiseraphael]

Oh...I get it.
It's all America's fault.
Of course.

[Aye]

Oh...I get it.
It's all America's fault.
Of course.

USA and Israel are to blame for this catastrophic rise in ISIS

[Emptyskin]

I don't know if you read the post or thought about it before you commented, but I try to make the case that despite the US efforts to handle these groups, the groups outwitted the US players. The US got played by these people twice.

[Solastalgia]

It was he who first put into motion the strategy of importing Islamic fundamentalists from everywhere on Earth into Pakistan, for reasons of deniability, arming them, and then sending them to fight the USSR.

It's now known that Brzezinski and Carter were funding mujahideen before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan (July 3, 1979 was the first signed derective for secret aid). Their support of the religious right mujahideen there, against the leftist pro-Soviet Regime in Kabul, was a large part of what provoked the Soviets to intervene militarily (December 24, 1979).

Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/ ... ujahideen/

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

[abu_rashid]

Whilst the US may have facilitated the establishment of the crucible (Afghanistan) that the Islamist revival flourished in, the revival of Islam was imminent anyway. So blaming the US for it is just absurd.

The first Islamist revivalist movements began almost as soon as the Ottoman Caliphate was dismantled, and they continued to grow in their influence and strength until they have today manifested themselves as almost independent state entities.

[Solastalgia]

Whilst the US may have facilitated the establishment of the crucible (Afghanistan) that the Islamist revival flourished in, the revival of Islam was imminent anyway. So blaming the US for it is just absurd.

How was it imminent, anyway? You honestly think we would be in the same place we are today, if the US didn't touch the middle east for the past few decades?

What is the revival of Islam, anyway? You mean Sunni Islamic jihad for the Caliphate? Don't you remember Condoleezza Rice laying out US strategy of creating a Sunni Belt to combat the Shi'ite Crescent (which she so voraciously hated). The US has been instrumental in the funding and support of the rise in Islamic jihad as of fairly recent history (covering the past half century). First through it's support of totalitarian dictatorships that are the financial base of these groups. Secondly, for blow-back and recruitment from the US waging wars against countries in the name of vanquishing a force that they have virtually supported over the years.

The first Islamist revivalist movements began almost as soon as the Ottoman Caliphate was dismantled, and they continued to grow in their influence and strength until they have today manifested themselves as almost independent state entities.

So it's the original fall of the Ottoman Empire which is to blame for what we see today with IS. Nothing to do with US and it's allies policy in the region. That's just absurd!

[Mircea]

Why Brzezinski is responsible for ISIS and how the US got totally played and now won't admit it

You seriously expect me to watch a video Useless Tube?

It was he who first foresaw the power of combating nationalism with religious fanaticism.

No. Wrong answer. Not even close. Your analysis fails due the fact that nationalism is non-existent tribal societies.

You do know what a "tribe" is, do you not?

It was he who first put into motion the strategy of importing Islamic fundamentalists from everywhere on Earth into Pakistan, for reasons of deniability, arming them, and then sending them to fight the USSR.

No, Plausible Deniability was Kermit Roosevelt's thing (and McNamara adored Roosevelt).

Do you know what a "sovereign State" is?

'Cause, you see, Pakistan is one.

What was the correct military strategy for Soviets in Afghanistan? Invade Pakistan. What is the correct military strategy for US/NATO forces in Afghanistan? Invade Pakistan.

Do you not see a problem there? Might I remind you that Pakistan is a sovereign State (at least in theory).

Do you don't think Russia could have invaded Pakistan? You don't think India would gladly drive north to finish the 1971 War? You had best think again, but what does that say about the Soviets/Russians and the Indians? They aren't the war-mongering barbarians US propaganda claims they are.

The US did not invade Pakistan, but it did conduct limited air-strikes.

After the withdraw of Soviet forces in Afghanistan, and the apparent success of the mujahedin, the group fragmented. This fragmentation saw the spread of various permutations of Islamic fundamentalism mixed with fugitives and exiles from their various origin states, and elements of drug cartels on at least four continents into the Middle East.

Uh-huh, and the MEK? How do you explain them?

The "M" in MEK is Mujahedeen.

Oooops...

They've been organized since 1965. Several assassination attempts on the Shah. They slew quite a few Americans in Iran. Did I mention they are Iranian? They were on the State Department list --- along with terrorist groups in Greece -- years before Carter became president.

Do you not remember the controversy of the Bush Administration hiring the MEK to interrogate Iraqis during the US occupation of Iraq?

There were many governments that needed toppling in the Middle East, governments not friendly at the time to Saudi Arabia, the US or Israel, and weapons and troops were in short order.

No, that is not it.

What event first rocked the Saudi World?

That would be the assassination of Egypt's King Farouk, by Nasser. The rift in the Muslim World was monarchy, not religion. Who's next? That would the US/UK assassination of Saudi King Faisal II of Iraq. And then the US backs Ghaddafi in the overthrow of the Libyan monarchy, and so on.

.... - the US does not appear to notice that it has been played.

You're entire premise is based on false assumptions.

Did I mention that Peace isn't profitable? Why do you automatically assume that the US wants peace or stability?

A new problem quickly presented itself when Obama's mettle came to be seen to be tested after his comments about a "red line" concerning the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

It has been said that the "red line threat" was revoked after it became clear that Assad had not used chemical weapons, but that Turkish and Saudi intelligence had provided them to the Al-Nusra Front (a branch of al qaeda) in an attempt at manipulation.

Yes, that's called a "false flag." That is a staple of the US regimen in the "How To Overthrow A Government" hand-book.

In April the much beloved Senator John McCain, the cunning strategist,....

Uh, wut? McCan't is dumber than you.

Libya and Syria have been repressive regimes, yes, ...

Sometimes dictatorship and repression are the only way to save your State from being enslaved by Americans

Did you ever consider that?

Well, now you have something new to think about.

Judge for yourself the success of this strategy of arming proxies and attempting to manipulate them, ...

You mean like Castro?

You'd waste your valuable time watching a video on Useless Tube, but your refuse to read the Pike Committee Report? The Church Committee Report? The House Select-Committee on Assassinations Report?

Why don't you read those very informative reports, because they refute your claims. The strategy of arming proxies is very successful.

I don't know if you read the post or thought about it before you commented, but I try to make the case that despite the US efforts to handle these groups, the groups outwitted the US players. The US got played by these people twice.

But you failed to make the case.

You failed in part, because you do not understand Geo-Political Strategy, and because you refuse to go to the library and learn the Geo-Strategy the US has in play.

You also failed because your mental faculties are limited.

You can't possibly understand sacrifice or the value of sacrifice, and I doubt you can wrap your brain around the concept of making a short-term sacrifice in order to realize a long-term gain.

[Mircea]

Oh...I get it.
It's all America's fault.
Of course.

Just as soon as Americans stop enslaving people to sustain their ridiculously extravagant Standard of Living, the World will be a better place.

It's now known that Brzezinski and Carter were funding mujahideen before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan (July 3, 1979 was the first signed derective for secret aid). Their support of the religious right mujahideen there, against the leftist pro-Soviet Regime in Kabul, was a large part of what provoked the Soviets to intervene militarily (December 24, 1979).

Correct.

There is substantial evidence that the US murdered Daud. Those documents aren't scheduled for declassification review until 2053.

If you know the history of Afghanistan, it was a No-Man's Land. Effectively it was a buffer-State between Russia, Persia and India. In 1942, one of the more powerful tribal leaders established a monarchy, and that's when Afghanistan became a State. Political reforms shifted Afghanistan to a constitutional monarchy in the 1950s on paper, but not in practice. That is what prompted Mohammed Daud to overthrow the government in 1973.

Daud was an avowed socialist, but had extensive Western contact, and was seeking Western investment. He had contracts with Canada, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Sweden to import construction equipment and other Capital. One of the first things he did was to expand the airport at Kabul to handle modern commercial passenger and cargo aircraft, to import more items from the West in an attempt to modernize Afghanistan.

In 1978, Daud and about 100 of his supporters are murdered and their bodies are buried in a pit, dug by the construction equipment Daud imported from the West (yes that was intentional).

This group is also Socialist, but pro-Western, especially pro-US. They are subsequently overthrown in military coup, supported by Pakistani ISI. The military is overthrown by another group. This new government is pro-Soviet.

The group that over-throws Daud attempts a counter-coup. The pro-Soviet government is successful in crushing it, but only with the death of many supporters and loss of vehicles and weapons.

The military attempts a counter-coup. Again, the pro-Soviet government beats them off, but loses a large number of supporters, vehicles and equipment doing so.

A coalition of tribal groups in the North forms an army and starts marching toward Kabul. At the same time, a coalition of tribal groups from the Northwest forms an army and starts marching toward Kabul. A third army of tribal groups from the South starts marching on Kabul.

The pro-Soviet government is weak, with no possible way to defend against any one of those three armies, much less all three of them.

Whichever army gets to Kabul first, will be the new government of Afghanistan.

What options does the government have? Their only option -- if they want to remain in power -- is to seek help from the Soviets. The Soviets agree to send troops to defend the government.

The Soviets crush all three armies in no time flat. It was quite disturbing, if you know the history of the US Army. Remember that the US relied on unfounded assumptions regarding the type of war-fighting used by various States. It was assumed --- without any basis in fact or logic -- that States purchasing Soviet weapons and equipment used Soviet military strategy and doctrine.

The 1973 Yom Kippur War destroyed that notion.

That prompted a review of all prior Israeli-Arab conflicts, which then struck fear in the US Army as they realized the Arabs were using the US/UK style of war-fighting and the Israelis were using a modified version of the Soviet-style.

So the US Army is in a total panic as is it tries to come up with a new doctrine --- AirLand Battle 2000 -- and then as it tries to implement Division '86.

Daud's crimes were that he abolished the monarchy in Afghanistan -- he did bad in the eyes of the Saudis; and he attempted modernization, which included the expansion of women's rights and getting women more active in all facets of life. He was very keen on the Tanzimat Reform from Ottoman Empire, and on the modern Turkish-State. Don't forget that Daud is either a Turk or Turco-Mongol. Since he used the name Khan, that suggests Turco-Mongol.

Whilst the US may have facilitated the establishment of the crucible (Afghanistan) that the Islamist revival flourished in, the revival of Islam was imminent anyway. So blaming the US for it is just absurd.

No, wrong.

The revival of fundamentalism was created by the US and its support of puppet-dictators who denied people any rights.

You never read Mohammed Talbi? Well, he's a Tunisian. He's famous for the quote: "We have the freedom to shut up."

Get it?

I doubt that you do.

Criticize government or government policies in public, and you get arrested and tortured by the secret police who are trained, funded, equipped and supported US and British intelligence agencies; criticize government or government policies on television and your TV-stations gets shut down, and you get arrested and tortured by the secret police who are trained, funded, equipped and supported US and British intelligence agencies; criticize government or government policies on radio and your radio-station gets shut down, and you get arrested and tortured by the secret police who are trained, funded, equipped and supported US and British intelligence agencies; criticize government or government policies in the newspaper and your newspaper gets shut down, and you get arrested and tortured by the secret police who are trained, funded, equipped and supported US and British intelligence agencies; criticize government or government policies in books or other media and they get shut down, and you get arrested and tortured by the secret police who are trained, funded, equipped and supported US and British intelligence agencies.

Where is the one place in the entire country where you can to to criticize government without being harassed?

A mosque.

You think the governments in those States are going to close the mosques? That would be like closing church in the US. Instant rebellion time.

Did you just arrive on Earth? Well, here's some info about Human Nature that you can include in your report to your superiors on Planet Alpha Zeta Rectal in the Anus System.

Humans are very easy to co-opt. Some humans crave power. They will seek it anyway they can. These power-seekers will often use ideology to corrupt. The ideology may be religious-based, or politically-based, or even socially or philosophically-based. Power-seekers who exploit ideology often create cults or cult-like movements.

Let's make the US a dictatorship. Let's start disappearing Americans who criticize this dictatorship. Let's start shutting down TV-stations, radio-stations, newspapers and book publishers and sellers who offer a platform for people to criticize government.

What's left?

The internet. So the government shuts that down or restricts it.

Now, what's left? Where's the only place you can go to speak freely?

A church.

And sooner or later, a power-seeker will show and co-opt people with politicized christianity, and then you have fundamental christians running around yelling "Yahweh is Great" and blowing everything up.

See how that works?

The first Islamist revivalist movements began almost as soon as the Ottoman Caliphate was dismantled, and they continued to grow in their influence and strength until they have today manifested themselves as almost independent state entities.

Um, Churchill drew the map of the Middle East, not Imams.

[abu_rashid]

How was it imminent, anyway?

Islamic teachings mandate the establishment of a Caliphate. As soon as the Ottoman Caliphate fell (it had been in decline for centuries anyway, so revivalist movements began even before it fell), the Muslims realised they had to act to restore their civilisation

You honestly think we would be in the same place we are today, if the US didn't touch the middle east for the past few decades?

The US certainly helped it along, unwittingly IMHO.

What is the revival of Islam, anyway?

Establishment of a Caliphate is the centre piece. But more broadly return to the original teachings of Islam, which over the centuries became clouded in superstition and mystical mumbo jumbo. Islam is a very practical religion, but it lost some of its simplicity throughout the ages it ruled.

You mean Sunni Islamic jihad for the Caliphate?

Jihad to establish the Caliphate is a reactionary approach used by those who've lost hope of the political struggle for Islamic revival.

So it's the original fall of the Ottoman Empire which is to blame for what we see today with IS. Nothing to do with US and it's allies policy in the region. That's just absurd!

If it didn't fall, there'd be nothing to revive. It's not necessarily responsible, but without it falling, the condition doesn't exist that warrants working to re-establish it. Isn't this just simple logic?

[annatar1914]

For an interesting take on all this, read;

http://tenc.net/iraq-iran.htm

I think the US and militant Islam are quite compatible, as is capitalism and Islam.