Using the transitive powers of unified thread theory .. here's the product of a spliced thread ..
ISIS in Iraq Stinks of CIA/NATO ‘Dirty War’ Op
By William Engdahl
June 24, 2014 "ICH" - "RT"- - For days now, since their dramatic June 10 taking of Mosul, Western mainstream media have been filled with horror stories of the military conquests in Iraq of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, with the curious acronym ISIS.
ISIS, as in the ancient Egyptian cult of the goddess of fertility and magic. The media picture being presented adds up less and less.
Details leaking out suggest that ISIS and the major military ‘surge’ in Iraq - and less so in neighboring Syria - is being shaped and controlled out of Langley, Virginia, and other CIA and Pentagon outposts as the next stage in spreading chaos in the world’s second-largest oil state, Iraq, as well as weakening the recent Syrian stabilization efforts. Strange facts
The very details of the ISIS military success in the key Iraqi oil center, Mosul, are suspect. According to well-informed Iraqi journalists, ISIS overran the strategic Mosul region, site of some of the world’s most prolific oilfields, with barely a shot fired in resistance. According to one report, residents of Tikrit reported remarkable displays of “soldiers handing over their weapons and uniforms peacefully to militants who ordinarily would have been expected to kill government soldiers on the spot.”
We are told that ISIS masked psychopaths captured “arms and ammunition from the fleeing security forces” - arms and ammunition supplied by the American government. The offensive coincides with a successful campaign by ISIS in eastern Syria. According to Iraqi journalists, Sunni tribal chiefs in the region had been convinced to side with ISIS against the Shiite Al-Maliki government in Baghdad. They were promised a better deal under ISIS Sunni Sharia than with Baghdad anti-Sunni rule.
According to the New York Times, the mastermind behind the ISIS military success is former Baath Party head and Saddam Hussein successor, General Ibrahim al-Douri. Douri is reportedly the head of the Iraqi rebel group Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order as well as the Supreme Command for Jihad and Liberation based on his longstanding positions of leadership in the Naqshbandi sect in Iraq.
In 2009, US ‘Iraqi surge’ General David Petraeus, at the time heading the US Central Command, claimed to reporters that Douri was in Syria. Iraqi parliamentarians claimed he was in Qatar. The curious fact is that despite being on the US most wanted list since 2003, Douri has miraculously managed to avoid capture and now to return with a vengeance to retake huge parts of Sunni Iraq. Luck or well-placed friends in Washington?
The financial backing for ISIS jihadists reportedly also comes from three of the closest US allies in the Sunni world—Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. ...
What Did the White House Know? Did Obama Know that ISIS Planned to Invade Iraq? By Mike Whitney
“I think we have to understand first how we got here. We have been arming ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) in Syria. ISIS, an al Qaeda offshoot, has been collaborating with the Syrian rebels whom the Obama administration has been arming in their efforts to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.” - Senator Rand Paul, Interview CNN
June 24, 2014 "ICH" - "Counterpunch"- - Today’s head-scratcher: How could a two-mile long column of jihadi-filled white Toyota Land rovers barrel across the Syrian border into Iraq–sending plumes of dust up into the atmosphere –without US spy satellites detecting their whereabouts when those same satellites can read a damn license plate from outer space? And why has the media failed to inquire about this massive Intelligence failure?
Barack Obama is a big proponent of “inclusive democracy” which is why he wants Iraqi prime minister Nouri al Maliki to either include more Sunnis in the government or resign as PM. In an interview with CNN, Obama said, “We gave Iraq the chance to have an inclusive democracy, to work across sectarian lines to provide a better future for their children and unfortunately what we’ve seen is a breakdown of trust…There’s no doubt that there has been a suspicion for quite some time now amongst Sunnis that they have no access to using the political process to deal with their grievances, and that is in part the reason why a better-armed and larger number of Iraqi security forces melted away when an extremist group, Isis, started rolling through the western portions of Iraq.
“Part of the task now is to see whether Iraqi leaders are prepared to rise above sectarian motivations, come together, and compromise. If they can’t there’s not going to be a military solution to this problem … There’s no amount of American firepower that’s going to be able to hold the country together and I’ve made that very clear to Mr Maliki and all the other leadership inside of Iraq (that) they don’t have a lot of time.” (New York Times)
Anyone who thinks Obama gives a rip about sectarian problems in Iraq needs his head examined. That’s the lamest excuse for a policy position since the Bush administration announced they were sending troops to Afghanistan to “liberate” women from having to wear headscarves. If Obama was serious about “inclusive democracy” as he calls it, then he’d withhold the $1.3 billion from his new dictator buddy, Generalissimo al Sisi of Egypt who toppled the democratically-elected government in Cairo, installed himself as top-dog in conspicuously rigged elections, and is now planning to execute 200-plus Egyptians for being members of a party that was legal just a few months ago. Do you think Obama is pestering al-Sisi to be “more inclusive”? No way. He doesn’t care how many people are executed in Egypt, anymore than he cares whether al Maliki blocks Sunnis from a spot in the government. What matters to Obama and his deep-state puppetmasters is regime change, that is, getting rid of a nuisance who hasn’t followed Washington’s directives. That’s what this is all about. Obama and Co. want to give al Maliki the old heave-ho because he refused to let US troops stay in Iraq past the 2012 deadline and because he’s too close to Tehran. Two strikes and you’re out, at least that’s how Washington plays the game.
So Maliki has got to go, and all the hoopla over sectarian issues is just pabulum for the News Hour. It means nothing. The real goal is regime change. That, and the partitioning of Iraq. ...
@mlcalderone: NY Post and Daily News both urging Obama to act in response to Sotloff killing:
ISIS is America’s New Terror Brand: Endless Propaganda Fuels “War on Terror”
In the wake of World War I, erstwhile propagandist and political scientist Harold Lasswell famously defined propaganda as “the management of collective attitudes” and the “control over opinion” through “the manipulation of significant symbols.” The extent to which this tradition is enthusiastically upheld in the West and the United States in particular is remarkable.
The American public is consistently propagandized by its government and corporate news media on the most vital of contemporary issues and events.
Deception on such a scale would be of little consequence if the US were not the most powerful economic and military force on earth.
A case in point is the hysteria Western news media are attempting to create concerning the threat posed by the mercenary-terrorist army now being promoted as the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria, or “ISIS.”
As was the case with the US intelligence asset and bogey publicized as “Al Qaeda,” and Al Qaeda’s Syrian adjunct, “Al Nusra,” such entities are—apparently by design—inadequately investigated and defined by major news media. Absent meaningful historical context they usefully serve as another raison d’ểtre for America’s terminal “War on Terror.”
A seemingly obvious feature of such terrorist forces left unexamined by corporate media is that they are observably comprised of the same or comparable personnel unleashed elsewhere throughout the Middle East as part of a strategy proposed during the George W. Bush administration in 2007.
With the above observations in mind, ISIS is well-financed, militarily proficient, and equipped with modern vehicles and weaponry. It also exhibits an uncanny degree of media savvy in terms of propagating its message in professional-looking videos and on platforms such as YouTube and Twitter. “Western intelligence services,” the New York Times reports, claim to be “worried about their extraordinary command of seemingly less lethal weapons: state-of-the-art videos, ground images shot from drones, and multilingual Twitter messages.”
Along these lines, ISIS even received a largely sympathetic portrayal in a five-part series produced and aired by the Rupert Murdoch-backed Vice News. Indeed, Vice News’ “The Spread of the Caliphate” is reminiscent of the public relations-style reportage produced via the “embedding” of corporate news media personnel with US and allied forces during the 2003 conquest of Iraq.
The overt support of ISIS, combined with the fact that it is battling the same Syrian government the Obama administration overtly sought to wage war against just one year ago, strongly suggest the organization’s sponsorship by Western intelligence and military interests.
ISIS’s curious features are readily apparent to non-Western news outlets and citizenries. For example, Iran’s PressTV recently asked its readership, “Why does the ISIL have such easy access to Twitter, Youtube and other social media to propagate its ideologies?” The answer choices are, “1) Because the ISIL has very capable technicians who can best use social media, or 2) Because the US and Britain have provided the ISIL with unrestricted social media platform[s].” Note that the first choice is the overarching assumption of Western media outlets. Yet perhaps unsurprisingly, 90 percent of PressTV readers selected choice two.
No such queries are so much as alluded to by major corporate media, all of which are united in the notion that ISIS is an essentially indigenous phenomenon. Yet as coverage of the events of September 11, 2001 and subsequent state-sponsored terrorism indicates, such media are essentially a component of the national security state, their reports and broadcast scripts all but overtly written by intelligence and military organizations.
In the wake of 9/11 US news media seldom asked about the origins of Al Qaeda—particularly how it was a product of US intelligence agencies. With the history of Al Qaeda omitted, the Bush administration was permitted to wage war on Afghanistan almost immediately following those staged attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
Yet as is much the case with today’s manufactured ISIS phenomenon, that history was readily available, and its careful public examination might have implicated the United States intelligence community in the 9/11 attacks. “During the Cold War, but also in its aftermath,” Michel Chossudovsky observes,
the CIA—using Pakistan’s military intelligence apparatus as a “go between”—played a key role in training the Mujhadeen. In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have consistently supported the “Militant Islamic Base”, including Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, as part of their foreign policy agenda. The links between Osama bin Laden and the Clinton administration in Bosnia and Kosovo are well documented by congressional records.
As the United States and world approach the thirteenth anniversary of the most momentous false flag in modern history, the American public would be well-served to remind itself that ISIS is the new Al Qaeda—in other words, the new pretext that will in all likelihood be used by to take police state measures at home and military aggression abroad to new, perhaps unprecedented, levels.
With the above in mind, it is telling that one of the US government’s greatest fears isn’t ISIS at all. “The FBI’s most recent threat assessment for domestic terrorism makes no reference to Islamist terror threats,” the Washington Free Beacon reports, “despite last year’s Boston Marathon bombing and the 2009 Fort Hood shooting—both carried out by radical Muslim Americans.”
Instead, the nation’s foremost law enforcement agency is preoccupied with what it deems “domestic extremism” exhibited by its own subjects. A primary manifestation of such “extremism” is possessing the curiosity to discern and seek out truths and information amidst the barrage of manipulated symbols the government and corporate-controlled media use to undermine a potentially informed public.
 Harold Lasswell, Propaganda Technique in the World War, Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1927/1971.
 Seymour Hersh, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s New Policy Benefitting Our Enemies in the War on Terrorism?” New Yorker, March 5, 2007; Tony Cartalucci, “Extremists Ravaging Syria Created by US in 2007,” Land Destroyer Report, May 11, 2012.
 Scott Shane and Ben Hubbard, “ISIS Displaying a Deft Command of Varied Media,” New York Times, August 30, 2014.
 Joe Bercovici, “Thanks to Rupert Murdoch, Vice is Worth $1.4 Billion. Could it be in Play Soon?” Forbes, August 19, 2014; Medyan Dairieh, “The Spread of the Caliphate: The Islamic State,” Vice News, August 13, 2014.
Harold Lasswell (above) dovetails nicely into Paul Nitze (below) ..
*Paul Nitze, NSC 68 - Objectives and Programs for National Security *Nitze didn't like the Nixon/Kissinger Soviet thaw, the Committee on the Present Danger *Peddlers of Crisis (Sanders 1999), Nitze had it all wrong *Edward Bernays and the overthrow of Arbenz *Kennedy and Laos, Kennedy and Khrushchev letters *The Missile Crisis, if it was Johnson, Nixon, Eisenhower, we might not be here today *This is a good big-picture book on the creation of the military/industrial complex *Kennedy and Vietnam, why debate?, Kennedy was never going into Vietnam *Mis-torians writing books on Kennedy
Vanishing Airliners, “ISIS”, and 9/11. “Timing is Crucial in Politics”
Timing is crucial in politics.
Therefore, when events transpire, they can often be as important as what transpires. This article discusses reasons as to why the timing of certain very recent events pertaining to vanishing aircraft and ISIS is highly suspicious.
The very trustworthy MSM has just informed us that 11 commercial jet airliners vanished two weeks ago from an airport in Tripoli, Libya. Evidently, U.S. intelligence has just gotten around to informing citizens of the event. A couple of observations should be made before we get to the discussion of timing. It is a fact that nanosatellite technology with “night vision” capability has been available, and even publicly discussed, since as early as 1997. Furthermore, the National Reconnaissance Office, which spawns these devices, recently assigned a mission patch proclaiming that “Nothing is Beyond Our Reach” to a 2013 payload containing “Government Experimental Multi-Satellite” objects.
In addition, it is almost certainly the case that the skies of Libya, in particular Tripoli, are almost certainly blanketed with drones. In view of the preceding, it is reasonable to suppose that the United States Government almost certainly knows where the aircraft are, but chooses to act as though it doesn’t.
Now to matters of timing.
After sitting on the supposed vanishings for two weeks, information seeped into the mainstream media only after the release of a second ISIS beheading video (if that is in fact what it was). Are we supposed to believe USG (us government) lost the planes for two weeks, looked for them and couldn’t find them, and only now decided it’s time to sound the alarm to the general public?
That’s possible, but consider also that the news of the vanishings arrived in tandem with news of the second “beheading.” And, we’re also told that the second beheading video may have been released early by accident?
A second “beheading” has more effect if followed by more news of vanishing aircraft a bit later–so why would USG, after two weeks, have come out with news of the vanishing aircraft only immediately subsequent to an “accidental” release of the second beheading video–unless it was trying to maximize propaganda value regarding potential events it must have at least some degree of control over since it almost certainly knows where those aircraft are?
Of course, the 11 vanishings could just be illusory and unadulterated propaganda; the game move could be pretty much the same regardless.
So where does this leave us?
On August 1, this author wrote with respect to MH 17, MH 370, Air France 447, and, in particular, AH 5017 (all aircraft that vanished from contact), that:
Matters are so compromised with respect to the status of bodily evidence [regarding AH 5017] that France now thinks it could take from three to five months for forensic processes to produce the first identifications.
And then we have the facts that it took hours for airline and government officials to make AH 5017’s disappearance public, there were 51 French passengers, and France, declaring victory, had very recently terminated Operation Serval (a counterterrorism adventure in Mali).
Finally, we have the pending performance on a France/Russia deal whereby Russia is to received delivery of two Mistral warships. Maybe certain elitist elements would rather see France breach the contract?
As implicitly predicted, we now have news that France has, at least temporarily, cancelled the contract with Russia. So here’s what may well happen next: Obama’s response so far has been tepid; a couple hundred troops to Iraq and the declaration that “ISIS” is “manageable” by the “international community.” That is not going to be enough for people who want much more aggressive action against Russia and in the Middle East. Therefore, in coming days, we’ll have another, more intense round of chicken; France has seen the writing on the wall and chickened out already in view of even more vanished aircraft. It’s now 9/3, giving us 8 days to 9/11. The next scene probably happens tomorrow; it could be something like a group of “beheadings.” Whatever it is, it will be noticeably scaled up.
For news cycle type reasons, I doubt much will happen over the weekend other than noises here and there. If something does happen over the weekend, it will have to be pretty big in order to garner attention. Once we get to next week, we’re on a collision course. If Obama still hasn’t acted aggressively, on either Monday or Tuesday a pretty big event is likely to happen, but probably not in the U.S. A U.S. event is reserved for next Thursday and will only be engaged if Obama has still not acted in ways deemed sufficient.
Dr. Jason Kissner is associate professor of criminology at California State University, Fresno. You can reach him at email@example.com.