Is ISIS an excuse to topple al-Assad?

[pmaitra]

Is ISIS an excuse to topple al-Assad?

So the US, and its retinue, including its more devoted servant UK, failed to invade Syria, even after carrying out a false flag chemical attacks via their al-Qaida proxies in Syria, which they blamed on al-Assad. Later evidence has shown it was most likely the "friends" of the US and UK who would have done this.

Now, Cameron, Obama's aide-de-camp, says that he does not need al-Assad's permission to strike at ISIS in Syria.

Here is my guess, although, I must admit, this is purely speculation, that, ISIS is being used as an excuse, and the US and UK will eventually target the Syrian Arab Army facilities, to further weaken them, and actually enable ISIS to take control of Damascus, who then will be given a clean chit by the US and UK, just like they did business with the Taliban after the ouster of Najibullah in Afghanistan.

What do you people think?

Note, this is a purely speculation, so we are theorizing here - i.e., we are not only going to talk about what has happened, but also what might happen. So, feel free to post your theories of potential conspiracies (it might actually be true, like some of the past ones).

 

[Dhairya Yadav]

Is ISIS an excuse to topple al-Assad?

So the US, and its retinue, including its more devoted servant UK, failed to invade Syria, even after carrying out a false flag chemical attacks via their al-Qaida proxies in Syria, which they blamed on al-Assad. Later evidence has shown it was most likely the "friends" of the US and UK who would have done this.

Now, Cameron, Obama's aide-de-camp, says that he does not need al-Assad's permission to strike at ISIS in Syria.

Here is my guess, although, I must admit, this is purely speculation, that, ISIS is being used as an excuse, and the US and UK will eventually target the Syrian Arab Army facilities, to further weaken them, and actually enable ISIS to take control of Damascus, who then will be given a clean chit by the US and UK, just like they did business with the Taliban after the ouster of Najibullah in Afghanistan.

What do you people think?

Note, this is a purely speculation, so we are theorizing here - i.e., we are not only going to talk about what has happened, but also what might happen. So, feel free to post your theories of potential conspiracies (it might actually be true, like some of the past ones).

With all due respect, I disagree. US has major strategic interest in Iraq, And after ISIS beheading US citizens, Chances of US supporting ISIS are gone.

I have huge respect for Syrian Govt and Army. They have been fighting the organisation which the world calls "Biggest threat in Earth" for 3 yrs, and still not backing down or coming under pressure.

ISIS's move to Iraq was because of their failure to capture Syria, where Assad Regime has left them with a bloody nose.

If US is indeed serious about stopping about ISIS , They must shake hands with Syria...For now. Pretty much like the USA-UK-Soviet Alliance in WW2.

 

[pmaitra]

With all due respect, I disagree. US has major strategic interest in Iraq, And after ISIS beheading US citizens, Chances of US supporting ISIS are gone.

Certainly. As I said, I am asking a question, and speculating.

BTW, I speculated on September 5, 2014, and Sergei Lavrov said the same thing and the report was published on September 9, 2014.

I have huge respect for Syrian Govt and Army. They have been fighting the organisation which the world calls "Biggest threat in Earth" for 3 yrs, and still not backing down or coming under pressure.

ISIS's move to Iraq was because of their failure to capture Syria, where Assad Regime has left them with a bloody nose.

True, all the plans by the west failed to bear fruit. Now, this could be, potentially, an opportunity for the west to weaken al-Assad. On the other hand, I also think this could be of some help to al-Assad, as the ISIS is nothing but an offshoot of the FSA-al-Qaida ensemble, who have been fighting al-Assad.

If US is indeed serious about stopping about ISIS , They must shake hands with Syria...For now. Pretty much like the USA-UK-Soviet Alliance in WW2.

I do not foresee the US shaking hands with Syria, but going soft on them, until ISIS is reduced to less menacing proportions, and soon the anti-Syria tirade will resume.

Today, in BBC: BBC News - Viewpoint: IS won't be destroyed without Syria change

Eventually, let's wait and see.

 

[Hari Sud]

ISIS is not an excuse to topple Assad regime, but to start a civil war in Middle East in which Shiite and Sunnis fight each other. ISIS did not come into existence overnight. The ex soldiers of Saddam Hussein, all Sunnis, were waiting for an opportunity and topple the Shiite regime in Iraq which had been put in place by the Americans. When that happens, the Iranians will be drawn into the fight.

Syria had no role in any of this except that the Assad's regime is also Shiite and had been drawn into the situation because Americans could not overthrow it just as easily they overthrew the Libya's, Egypt's and Tunisian regimes. Overconfident Americans went after Syria but failed. The idea of overthrowing both Syrian regime and Iraqi Shiite was mooted in Saudi Arabian and Qatar's leaders mind, both Sunnis. They funded and organized the ISIS. What they did not know was that the leader of ISIS has other ideas like forming a Caliphate after 400 years.

What American could not figure out during the forming of ISIS in Syrian border with Iraq was that the ISIS leader is an extreme Muslim Mullah even worst that Al Wahab, the Saudi mentor who liver five hundred years back. He would mercilessly execute anybody who would stand in his way. His first target was capture American Military hardware from the Shiite Iraqi soldiers who were not trained and were almost coward. To spread terror he executed a bunch. Then he threatened tiny minorities with execution. Until then, ISIS was unknown. That threat to execute everybody brought international attention. To get American attention, he executed two Americans in front of cameras. Now he has American attention.

The world is wondering how will the Americans react. So far Obama has reacted miserably. According to him, he wants Assad regime toppled, again by the ISIS, but not the Shiite Iraqi regime. These are hard to reconcile situation. It is ammunition to ISIS. They want both regimes bite the dust. In the process they will eliminate Kurds resistance. Lightly armed Kurds are unlikely to match the hardened Saddam Hussein's soldiers. Hence American promise to degrade the ISIS and let Arab soldiers eliminate them is not likely to happen.

Correct solution would be to get Assad regime on American side and if possible organize this poorly trained and motivated Shiite soldiers of Iraq to exert military pressure on ISIS and catch them in a vice.

Nay! that would not happen. Americans are too far deep in the civil war in Syria that they cannot extricate themselves out. Hence with their flanks in disarray, the ISIS soldiers will march on to Baghdad and start a fight with the Iranians. New civil war, which the previous one ended in the fifteenth century with Turks in control of all of Middle East and Iranians fighting to get a piece of it will begin all over again.

Do not worry about American and European Citizens fighting on behalf of ISIS. They will be dead one way or the other. What US and Europeans have to do is not to let more to join them. Also prevent the leftover of war veteran from returning back. If they do return, they return in chains as prisoners not as heroes.

 

[Ray]

I would not be surprised if all this chaos is orchestrated by the US for their strategic gains.

 

[ezsasa]

Agree with @Ray, problem seems to be that US seems to be going after short term goals. Whether they will set and achieve long term goal only time will tell. I think they want to convert these countries into Turkish model of government I.e Arab but Western

 

[Abhijat]

Competitive Shia-Sunni Gas Pipelines Politics? » Indian Defence Review

Syria Gas pipeline


When combat soldiers are faced with a chemical attack, the military practice to exhale polluted air before donning a protective mask is by shouting 'gas-gas-gas.' By repeating the 'G' word many times over, it appears that USA and her allies have taken the first step: further action(s) against Assad's Syria – justified or otherwise, are expected.


The Syria-Iran-Iraq Gas Pipeline, dubbed as the 'Islamic Pipeline,' is a $10 Billion project which was agreed upon by the three countries in July 2011.


While the western narrative for initiating actions against Syria is being justified as retribution for chemical attacks perpetuated by a diabolic President Assad, there is more happening 'in' and 'around' Syria than what meets the eye : control of natural gas reserves, its trade, distribution and the strategic advantages it bestows are alternative and cogent reasons meriting western military intervention? History has proved that the lure of energy resources is powerful and oil and gas bequeathed to the Islamic world has turned out more as a curse, rather than a boon for its people; Iraq, Libya and the division of Sudan are recent examples of the plunder of Middle Eastern nationhood. This energy rich region has been repeatedly crushed and mutilated with utter disregard for socio-ethnic concerns for gaining control over the oil 'wells of power.' The anticipated attack on Syria by an incensed 'coalition of the willing' portends to be the latest in this game of hardball played for gaining geo-political strategic advantage(s).

Since it is intended to provide an alternative narrative for the fast developing war-like situation, a brief background is required to be provided. Geographically located at the junction of the fuel starved European Union and energy rich Iraq and Iran, Syria, by virtue of her location alone has the potential to play a pivotal role in conducting gas supplies to Europe. In addition, Syria now has recently struck gas off her coast, the closest to Europe from where she could now supply gas directly. Collectively, these advantages make Syria's role pivotal and dominant in the future. At the same time, the spectre of direct supply supplemented by the gas pipeline from Iran through Syria would trip the dream of Qatar to supply gas to Europe directly. USA, a strategic partner of Qatar and Saudi Arabia and being the largest beneficiary of their oil revenues, seems willing to back her partners to knock out Syria and Iran from the energy equation. By doing so, she would concurrently stymie Russian and Chinese attempts to alter the status quo favouring the USA, western powers and the nations of the Sunni Muslim world as also favour herself and Turkey by ensuring alternative Qatari gas for their joint gas pipeline project.

Essentially an Arab nation with 74 percent of its population being Sunni Muslims, the territory of Syria, which included what is today's Lebanon, was mandated to France as spoils after the First World War under the Treaty of Sevres; in turn this was the outcome of a secret agreement (Sykes-Picot) brokered between Britain and France. This not only dampened Arab democratic aspirations, despite the elections of May 1919, this also flew in the face of the American led Crane Commission which was required to recommend the political future in accordance with the aspirations of the Arab people: both were thrown out of the window by Britain and France. Cutting the story of the Syrian struggle to the barest, France went on to occupy Syria in July 1920, though it took them another three years to establish full control over Syria. Later, Lebanon was carved out of Syria to provide a safe haven to Christians; the only state in the middle east where they are in majority over the Muslims.

As the world waits with bated breath for American Tomahawks to fly across the Syrian bows, it would be prudent to surmise that these are not merely being fired to punish the use of chemical weapons, but more importantly to serve a warning to Assad to scuttle his ambitious plans to supply piped gas to Europe directly.


The story of independent Syria since 1946 remained turbulent as it soon entered the Arab war against the newly created state of Israel in 1948, losing a part of the strategic Golan Heights in the bargain. Internal rumblings resulted in a coup-de-tat which ushered in military rule, which was replaced by another and the third in 1951. Even a return of a national (civil) government in 1956 could not bring stability; to illustrate, till 1956, Syria already had twenty new cabinets and four separate constitutions. In order to overcome her security concerns after the Suez Canal crisis of 1967, Syria signed a pact with the Soviet Union, allowing the chill of the Cold war to permeate the region. This naturally alarmed the Turks (Turkey has the Syrian city of Iskendron under its occupation), and in turn, pushed the Syrians further in the embrace of the Soviet Union. The important point being made in this story of unstable nationhood is that 'external' factors have been many and they have repeatedly altered the course of Syrian history.

A brief interlude (1958-1961) of merger with Egypt followed taking the form of the short lived United Arab Republic. The experiment failed after power was retaken by the military in Damascus, this time under the cloak of the Baath Party: the party that had also taken over in neighbouring Iraq. At that stage there were talks of a unification of Syria, Egypt and Iraq as a solitary Arab nation, which eventually floundered after the party lost control over Baghdad in 1963. Within three years there was yet another coup ushering in the Second Baath government. The 1967 Six Day War with Israel that followed resulted in weakening of the Syrian government, though this did not deter them to send in forces for a misadventure against Jordan in support of the Palestine guerrillas after the dramatic events of the Black September. After receiving another bloody nose, it was the turn of the Minister of Defence, Hafez al-Assad, the father of the current president belonging to the dominant Alawites (Alawis are a prominent religious group of Shia Muslims, forming twelve percent of the population of Syria who live in the Levant which is located at the cross roads of Western Asia, Eastern Mediterranean and North East Africa) to take over and consolidate the nation under the National Progressive Front, which undertook a 'Correctionist Movement' over the next thirty years. It was the lingering effect of his 'reformist' movement that transfer of power to the son following his death in June 2000 was smooth as the Syrian Parliament relaxed the minimum legal age from 40 to 34 to facilitate taking over by President Bashar al-Assad. The reign of Assad, an army physician by training, has been relatively less turbulent, despite the US led invasion of Iraq and the ongoing civil war. He has cultivated amicable relations with Iran and despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, has maintained close links with Moscow.

Coming to what has led to war clouds rumbling over Syria once again – it's all about gas and more importantly, the economics connected to it. Environment friendly and low cost natural gas has emerged as the energy of choice of the future and is set to replace coal and nuclear power generation, with the European Union being the largest market. This shift has coincided with major gas finds in Qatar, Iran, Syria and Israel, and it is this happenstance in energy geo-politics that as a blog put it as forming the string that 'binds Israel, Turkey and Qatar in the form of an unholy alliance on one side, and Assad's Syria, Iran, Russia and China on the other.'

"¦in strategic terms, the Qatar-Turkey pipeline is exceedingly important for Europe and USA as Europe can be freed from the Russian gas stranglehold, a grim reality of today.


As the world waits with bated breath for American Tomahawks to fly across the Syrian bows, it would be prudent to surmise that these are not merely being fired to punish the use of chemical weapons (rumoured to be a false flag operation), but more importantly to serve a warning to Assad to scuttle his ambitious plans to supply piped gas to Europe directly. It needs to be highlighted that the war to destabilise President Assad has been going for over two years and has taken the form of a Sunni-US sponsored civil war. It is the lack of success on this front that USA is being forced to go in for the kill. Legitimacy for undertaking the operation is being brokered to undertake punitive action(s) under an UN mandate for purported crimes committed against humanity and the chemical attack is being played up. It would be recalled that hysteria for war on Syria had also been built up in 2012; this got scuttled due to the actions taken by Russia and China working in tandem; this also led to the resignation of the then UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan.

The Syria-Iran-Iraq Gas Pipeline, dubbed as the 'Islamic Pipeline,' is a $10 Billion project which was agreed upon by the three
countries in July 2011. This proposes to pipe gas from the Pars field located in the Persian Gulf (single largest in the world) to Lebanon's coast from where it would be supplied to the European markets by the year 2018. Since the Iranian Pars gas field extends beyond the Persian Gulf, Qatar, the second claimant of the world's second largest field also plans to supply gas directly to Europe but through an alternate pipeline through Turkey traversing Iraq, but bypassing both Iran and Syria. In Turkey this would be linked with the US backed Nabucco pipeline, carrying gas supplies from the Central Asian Republics, adding to the value, since it would have a diversified source. Both proposals are thus in direct competition with each other whose leverage makes them strategic since their impact would be far reaching and would increase with time. It is important to highlight that in strategic terms, the Qatar-Turkey pipeline is exceedingly important for Europe and USA as Europe can be freed from the Russian gas stranglehold, a grim reality of today. On the other hand, the pipeline from Iran and Syria would remain somewhat under Russian influence as would be the supply of gas through the Nabucco line from the Central Asian Republics.


USA which is not only a strategic partner of Qatar, has compulsions since her strategically important bases of CENTCOM are located in Qatar"¦


Adding to the complexity are issues related to the supply of gas from Egypt and Jordan. President Assad has preferred his tie up with Iran over that with Egypt and Jordan who planned to supply gas directly to Homs in Syria for Europe and Turkey through the Arab Gas Pipeline running directly from Aqaba via Amman in Jordan. This line already supplies gas to Lebanon and Israel through outlets in Sidon and Haifa, though the link to Homs in Syria is still to be developed. By proffering his preference over Egypt and Jordan, both Sunni Muslim states, President Assad has placed his hopes with Shia Iran and therefore this competition is projected as a Sunni-Shia Muslim internecine conflict and this is the colour of the civil war raging in Syria to displace President Assad with a candidate of choice from the Muslim Brotherhood, preferred by the Sunni world. It is pertinent to highlight that amongst others, the fight against Assad (regime change being the unstated aim) is being waged by Al Qaida jihadis along with numerous fighters sponsored by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the western world, including Israel. Principles, if there are any which are followed in the real world of energy geo-politics and geo-strategy already stand compromised.

At this stage there is the requirement to inject the role of the other affected party who is in direct competition with Syria – Israel. In addition to the gas that Syria is to receive from Iran for supply to Europe, her own (recently discovered, but under played) Qara gas field close to her border with Lebanon and near the Russian naval port of Tartus on the Mediterranean coast is believed to be equal if not greater than the gas reserves of Qatar; bestowing a great advantage to Syria. Around the same time, Israel which was till recently an energy deficient nation hit pay dirt by the discovery of a 'giant' gas field in the offshore Levant basin. Both Syria and Israel are therefore now in direct competition with each other for supply of gas to Europe, which in practical terms would be cheaper than the gas sourced from either Iran or Qatar due to the low transportation costs. A map is highlighting these links and issues.

When viewed in perspective, Israel and Syria will both have the economic edge over Iran and Qatar due to reduced distances, whereas in strategic terms, the enhanced role that Syria could play directly, combined with the leverage of Iran and Russia at the expense of Qatar, Turkey and Israel becomes the compelling and time critical reason for the west and the Sunni world to nip the threat before it can develop. USA which is not only a strategic partner of Qatar, has compulsions since her strategically important bases of CENTCOM are located in Qatar; these include the Air Expeditionary Wings of the US Air Force as well that of the Royal Air Force. Naturally, she would wish that the Iran-Syria initiative is eliminated from the equation. Since the thrust of the western initiative is also directed against Iran, this also reinforces Sunni domination over the Islamic world by the House of Saud over the Shiites of Iran. While the benefits for Israel and Turkey are obvious, this also dilutes Russian influence over Syria, while it provides an alternative source of gas for the US Nabucco pipeline. At the same time this restricts Chinese penetration in Iran's energy infrastructure. Thus while the immediate case to act against Syria is loudly made out as retribution for Assad's purported use of chemical weapons against the freedom loving people of the sponsored 'Free Syrian Army,' the game plan is larger with major strategic ramifications – behind the planned attacks, it's all about gas.

 

[pmaitra]

Ok folks, I think my apprehensions are closer to the truth now, as the "moderate Syrian rebels," the darling of the US and UK, the ones who have a taste for eating organs from corpses - oops, sorry - I meant to say the ones who will spread "democracy" in Syria, are entering a truce with ISIS, with, wait for it, with the help of al-Qaida, if this report is to be believed.

 

[pmaitra]

'US allies against ISIS are actually ISIS' main allies'

The way the US is carrying the anti-ISIS war is a total failure because the countries that initially supported, financed and armed ISIS are within the US coalition right now, Talal Atrache, an expert on Jihadist and Islamist mentality, told RT.

RT: A leaked report from the Department of Homeland Security has shown that since 2010, 13 men with terrorist ties have entered Canada through the US. Why is America ignoring the terrorist threat at home?

Talal Atrache: Since 9/11 the US has dramatically toughened its anti-terrorism laws in order to prevent attacks on its soil. It has increased its security and intelligence cooperation with many countries around the world and it has strongly lobbied the UN Security Council in order to favor anti-terrorist laws. Now the problem is that it's difficult to draw a clear line between, for example, those who hold violent religious ideologies and those are simply pious and not Islamist terrorists. The states should not discriminate against them just because they pray and go to mosques. It's not easy to track terrorists because"¦ they are present worldwide, and the US policies in the Middle East have led to an increased number of failed states that have become safe havens for different terrorist groups. These groups have now bases everywhere, and with a progress of technology and means of communication they have found new ways of expanding their worldwide network and to diversify their financial sources. So this is just to say that you can't create failed states worldwide and separately fight terrorism in the US or other individual countries.

RT: Why has Canada taken no action to stop these crossings of people linked to terrorist cells? Do you think Canada was notified about this?

TA: I don't know whether Canada was really notified. I suppose there is a strong and very close coordination between Canada and the US in regard to security measures, and they should have been notified. Canada has taken many measures in order to counter terrorism, it has recently toughened its citizenship and immigration laws, it has increased its financial intelligence measures designed at tracking suspects. But many politicians believe that more should be done and there is a project"¦right now on the table that gives the Canadian security intelligence service more power to probe terrorism and to track suspects. Again, it's not a domestic problem only; it's an international issue that has to be dealt with proper international policies.

RT: Is there a connection between the events at Parliament Hill and Canada's involvement in the US led anti-Islamic State coalition?

TA: Apparently yes, there is an indirect link, because the terrorist who did the attack apparently has some links with ISIS and Al-Qaeda groups, according to what ISIS is claiming right now and according to the profile of the terrorist. But this connection has to be yet proved in a more effective way, and definitely Canada's involvement in this war has transformed Canada into target for ISIS. In another way, let's say, even before Canada's involvement in the US war against ISIS, there were already approximately 100 Canadian jihadists fighting in Syria in the ranks of ISIS. This is just to say again that this terrorism threat is international and not just local, domestic issue in Canada or the US.

RT: Do you think that the idea of anti-IS coalition led by the US is good? Would this policy be successful?

TA: The way that the US is carrying this war is a total failure. Why? Just because the main US allies against ISIS are ISIS' main allies at the same time. The countries that supported initially and still financed, armed and supported ISIS are within the US coalition right now. And this doesn't make sense. Turkey, for example, has become a jihadist highway; this is the main place, platform for jihadists. Jihadists are coming all over the world, transited in Turkey and going into Syria with indirect help of the Turkish government - Erdogan has not yet fired a single shot against ISIS. On the contrary, it has even helped, facilitated logistically the ISIS network in order to achieve its goals in Syria which is to topple the Syrian government and to destroy the Kurdish self-administration that has been recently announced. At the same time Saudi Arabia and Qatar have played a strong role since the beginning of the Syrian war in promoting, helping and financing [jihadists]. The US is allied with these countries to fight ISIS, and the main thing would be, the main policy or attitude, is to fight these countries' policies that consist of supporting indirectly ISIS or Al-Nusra, which is the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda, and other extremist groups.

RT: What are the main problems with this US-led coalition fighting ISIS?

TA: The problem now is that, unfortunately, the US is unable to deviate from their dogmatic policy that consists of boycotting the Syrian government, and the US really needs boots on the ground. The only viable option would be to coordinate with the Syrian army, to promote and to help the Syrian army who is the only force willing to pay the heavy price of fighting tens of thousands of ISIS and other jihadists. They estimated that the Syrian army has lost more than 70,000 soldiers fighting mostly the jihadist groups since 2011. It's unimaginable that any other army in the world would be willing to pay that same price. This is on one side.

On the other [side], the US has done everything to reduce the influence of Syria during the past few years, it did everything it could to reduce the influence of Syria, Iran, BRICS group, including Russia and China, which happens to be the most qualified potential partners for the US campaign on terror. The main problem is that the US should change its allies if it really wants to fight terrorism, and to join forces with Russia, China, Iran, Syria, that is the principle, the main country concerned in this war. And on the other hand, to implement all the anti-terrorist laws against Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar who are in the US coalition.

There are many UN resolutions that have been passed in 2001, and here I can recall mainly the resolution 1373 that punishes any country that directly or indirectly supports terrorism. In this aspect the countries that should be targeted for supporting terrorism are Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other countries like Kuwait at the same time. So it's a matter of changing alliances and stopping this dogmatic policy that leads nowhere except [to] failing states all over the Middle East from Syria to Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. American policy in the Middle East has been a total failure, it just created safe haven for terrorists.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

 

[JBH22]

Anyone with sane mind should clearly see its a plan to introduce western troops.

The public is fed up of afghan and iraq adventure under Bush, so the americans are planning to sell the war as a mission to help the poor and terrorised Yazidis, kurds etc.

Overall aim is to topple ASsad after Russia showed them the middle finger.

 

[SajeevJino]

Anyone with sane mind should clearly see its a plan to introduce western troops.

The public is fed up of afghan and iraq adventure under Bush, so the americans are planning to sell the war as a mission to help the poor and terrorised Yazidis, kurds etc.

Overall aim is to topple ASsad after Russia showed them the middle finger.

I think everyone Start eating popcorn's when they Read International Terrorism Issues.even if happens in our Country we do the Same too .

 

[SajeevJino]

.


for some Unkonwn

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2801353/i-ve-raped-30-times-s-not-lunchtime-desperate-plight-yazidi-woman-begged-west-bomb-brothel-isis-militants-sold-sex-slavery.html#ixzz3HeqovoAT

 

[DingDong]

No matter what the western media says, ISIS is US' spoilt brat. US has a habit of grooming extremist elements which provide it the necessary ground for any future intervention in foreign countries. India-US diplomatic spat started over the issue of Bangladesh. While India supports the Awami League, US supported extremist Jamat and BNP because they had promised the US a naval base in Bangladesh. US was quite vocal about it. US decided to teach India a good lesson after names of few US diplomats posted in Bangladesh figured in the "Chittagong Weapons Haul" case. Our jawans have fought Mujahedin in Kashmir and Christian extremists in NE all funded by the US and it's allies.

India has taken the right decision by not joining the coalition against ISIS. Had the US not been a superpower, it might have been declared a terrorist sponsoring state.

 

[pmaitra]

No matter what the western media says, ISIS is US' spoilt brat. US has a habit of grooming extremist elements which provide it the necessary ground for any future intervention in foreign countries. India-US diplomatic spat started over the issue of Bangladesh. While India supports the Awami League, US supported extremist Jamat and BNP because they had promised the US a naval base in Bangladesh. US was quite vocal about it. US decided to teach India a good lesson after names of few US diplomats posted in Bangladesh figured in the "Chittagong Weapons Haul" case. Our jawans have fought Mujahedin in Kashmir and Christian extremists in NE all funded by the US and it's allies.

India has taken the right decision by not joining the coalition against ISIS. Had the US not been a superpower, it might have been declared a terrorist sponsoring state.

The link you provided does not mention US diplomats' involvement in that case. Do you have any other link? If you have, could you please open a new thread on that?

 

[pmaitra]

"There is no publicly accessible proof that the government of a state has been involved in the creation or financing of ISIS as an organisation," said Charles Lister, Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, a subsidiary of the US think-tank Brookings Institution.

Others take a different view. Günter Meyer is Director of the Center for Research into the Arabic World at the University of Mainz. Meyer says he has no doubt about where ISIS gets its funding. "The most important source of ISIS financing to date has been support coming out of the Gulf states, primarily Saudi Arabia but also Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates," Meyer told Deutsche Welle. The Gulf states' motivation in financing groups like ISIS was to support their fight against the regime of President Bashar al Assad in Syria, according to Meyer. Three quarters of the Syrian population are Sunni Muslims, but Syria is ruled by an elite drawn mostly from the Alawite minority. The Alawites are an offshoot of Shiite Islam.

Source: Who finances ISIS? | Business | DW.DE | 19.06.2014

 

[DingDong]

The link you provided does not mention US diplomats' involvement in that case. Do you have any other link? If you have, could you please open a new thread on that?

For starter:

US embassy was 'in touch'

I had read another article which suggested that the US mission in Bangladesh was building pressure on the Bangladesh government to protect the convicts (DGFI officials), will post it if I manage to find it.

 

[Ray]

Chuck Hagel said that in no uncertain terms when asked about the US bombing of ISIS also helping Syria.

 

[sorcerer]

US fighting to overthrow Assad government, not ISIL: Analyst

US airstrikes against the ISIL terrorist group in Syria is a cover for overthrowing the elected government of Bashar al-Assad, a political activist and radio host in New York says.

Despite the US-led military campaign to defeat ISIL, the Assad government is the only party successfully fighting the terrorist group, Don DeBar told Press TV on Thursday.

US officials are pursuing the ouster of Assad to weaken Syria and create a "chaotic situation" similar to the one in Iraq and Libya after their former leaders were deposed, DeBar argued.

President Barack Obama has asked his national security team to review US strategy toward Syria after concluding that ISIL may not be defeated with Assad in power, officials say.

Over the past week, the White House has convened four meetings of Obama's national security team, which according to a senior official, were "driven to a large degree how our Syria strategy fits into our ISIS (ISIL) strategy," CNN reported.

The ISIL terrorists -- some of whom were amongst militants initially trained by the CIA in Jordan in 2012 to destabilize the Syrian government -- now control large parts of Syria and Iraq.

The US launched airstrikes against ISIL targets in Iraq in August. A US-led coalition also began its military campaign against the group in Syria in late September.

AHT/GJH
PressTV - US fighting to overthrow Assad government, not ISIL: Analyst
@pmaitra
==========================================

Well, that seems to be the plan for now.

 

[nmb]

Whether ISIS is a Western creation, as many believe, or not, the chaos bequeathed by the Bush administration in Iraq tends to grow.

 

[Kshatriya87]

With all due respect, I disagree. US has major strategic interest in Iraq, And after ISIS beheading US citizens, Chances of US supporting ISIS are gone.

I have huge respect for Syrian Govt and Army. They have been fighting the organisation which the world calls "Biggest threat in Earth" for 3 yrs, and still not backing down or coming under pressure.

ISIS's move to Iraq was because of their failure to capture Syria, where Assad Regime has left them with a bloody nose.

If US is indeed serious about stopping about ISIS , They must shake hands with Syria...For now. Pretty much like the USA-UK-Soviet Alliance in WW2.

I for one think that toppling Assad is just "one" of the goals of USA for creating ISIS.

Now, people anticipated americans coming. Hence Russians increased their help to Syria and that's why they are still resisting.

Secondly, why would IS go to Iraq? They had no agenda of Islamic state in the beginning. It came later. My explanation would be that Syria told the world that they don't need to intervene. We don't need USA's help and we are handling it. Hence the plan of IS going to Iraq so americans can have an excuse, first to enter that area and then bomb Syria as well despite president assad's warnings that USA should not fly over Syria.

USA will never shake hands with Syria as they do not want Assad to win. Also, they are not interested in winning this war. As always, they want to prolong their presence in the area as much as they can. Also, Assad is a friend of Russians. Americans won't accept that. As long as Assad is there, no alliance will be formed with USA.