What exactly is ISIS?

[BIXX]

I am under the impression it is related to the Taliban, I've heard vaguely that the US trained them, but I don't really know anything about their politics/goals/whatever. Can someone help and it would be great if you gave me some reading material to look through. Thank you!

[Creative Destruction]

They're related to al Qaeda. Recently, like in the last year, they broke relations with al Qaeda. But otherwise, their goal is to establish a new caliphate, beginning in Iraq and Syria.

The Wiki is actually pretty good in its rundown, as far as I can tell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_in_Iraq_and_the_Levant

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

In addition to the op's question, can someone point me to some literature regarding the ideological underpinnings of groups like ISIS? I'm assuming jihadis have something equivalent to the communist manifesto, aside from the obvious religious texts.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

In addition to the op's question, can someone point me to some literature regarding the ideological underpinnings of groups like ISIS? I'm assuming jihadis have something equivalent to the communist manifesto, aside from the obvious religious texts.

This. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27alim_fi_al-Tariq)

Ma'alim fi al-Tariq, aka Milestones by Sayyid Qutb. His writings are basically the foundation of modern militant Islamism.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Ah ok, I'm familiar with the author but not the book, thanks

[Sasha]

This. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27alim_fi_al-Tariq)

Ma'alim fi al-Tariq, aka Milestones by Sayyid Qutb. His writings are basically the foundation of modern militant Islamism.

Modern militant Sunni Islamism... Quite a relevant detail if you are completely new to this mess...

[GerrardWinstanley]

They are an al-Qaeda splinter group, who were active many years in Iraq before they broke away over their infighting with other al-Qaeda fighters in the Syrian conflict (principally Jabhat al-Nusra fighting alongside the "moderate" insurgents) because their methods were deemed too extreme even for them. They operate under orders from the Saudi Royal Family. (https://www.facebook.com/pepe.escobar.77377/posts/10152182618676678)


This. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27alim_fi_al-Tariq)

Ma'alim fi al-Tariq, aka Milestones by Sayyid Qutb. His writings are basically the foundation of modern militant Islamism.He was also Brotherhood, interestingly.

[Bala Perdida]

Their former Al-Qaeda membership is where the US support comes from. Since the FSA has fairly strong ties to Al-Qaeda and similar jihadist groups, US support spills over to them.
So many weapons sent to the Syrian opposition by US and other NATO powers, ended up in the hands of ISIS. However, now they are saying that they are taking precaution and trying to aid Syrian opposition without ties to ISIS. Similarly ISIS militants were probably trained under the FSA, who is constantly trained by the US.
Due to a lot of British citizens going to fight for groups like ISIS, the British government is afraid of them going back to reek havoc. I remember a while ago, they were terminating the citizenship of those who went to fight in the conflict.
I'm oon my phone so I can't provide links, but you can probably search the topics and find some articles.

[Diogenese]

They wanna establish a new caliphate in the middle east, they are currently fighting in Iraq and Syria so totally unrelated to Taliban. As to what kind of government they want to make? A theocracy but the fact that they are putting ba'athists back into power suggests they are sympathetic to pan-arab socialism, so if they succeed in Iraq and Syria they will probably seek to control the rest of the middle east. They weren't trained by the US to my knowledge but they sure got a lot of their equipment they captured. They got their training fighting hezbollah and the syrian army for the past 2 yrs.
They will most likely succeed, whatever that means, I think most arabs have been yearning for a redrawing of the british and french map of the middle east. As to how this will eventually play out with Israel, I dunno, but not good.

[RedSonRising]

This. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27alim_fi_al-Tariq)

Ma'alim fi al-Tariq, aka Milestones by Sayyid Qutb. His writings are basically the foundation of modern militant Islamism.

Absolutely essential stuff to gain a fundamental understanding of it.

[khad]

They wanna establish a new caliphate in the middle east, they are currently fighting in Iraq and Syria so totally unrelated to Taliban. As to what kind of government they want to make? A theocracy but the fact that they are putting ba'athists back into power suggests they are sympathetic to pan-arab socialism
Lulwut.

The relationship between ISIS and any Baathists that might have taken advantage of this uprising is illustrated pretty well in a reddit ask-and-answer session from Mosul last week:


The only people in power in Mosul are ISIS. That's it, no one will carry arms against ISIS there. The situation in Tikrit is similar.

In the villages, among the tribes, the tribes are likely to fight against the army, they're the Ba'athists.
As for the average person, they just follow the strongest organization."

ISIS doesn't allow any civilian to carry arms. The Naqshbandis (Baathist militia) jumped on the revolt saying Our revolution" and so on. I talked to a guy close to ISIS, he said "just show me one Naqshbandi say that to my face, I'll have him hung."The only accusations I've seen claiming ISIS being actual Ba'athists are almost always sourced back to Al-Qaeda and its chief Syrian affiliate Nusra Front.

[khad]

They are an al-Qaeda splinter group, who were active many years in Iraq before they broke away over their infighting with other al-Qaeda fighters in the Syrian conflict (principally Jabhat al-Nusra fighting alongside the "moderate" insurgents) because their methods were deemed too extreme even for them. They operate under orders from the Saudi Royal Family. (https://www.facebook.com/pepe.escobar.77377/posts/10152182618676678)

He was also Brotherhood, interestingly.
I would take any reports of ISIS funding with a huge grain of salt, as everyone seems to have a different story. I would actually be particularly skeptical of the report you linked due to the fact that ISIS OPSEC is very tight, to the point that individual ISIS field commanders wear masks in front of their own men. No foot soldier will have the kind of access that would allow him to contact someone that high-ranking.

The primary vehicle of Saudi influence in Syria is Zahran Alloush of the Army of Islam, which is technically fighting ISIS. Would the Saudis be funding multiple sides of a conflict? Possibly, but this would also mean that the Saudi state is not monolithic and has elements/factions pursuing their own competing objectives. It's a very difficult situation to assess one way or another at this point.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqhN7Q7CEAALBpU.png:large

[Hrafn]

Oi personally find the most likely situation that ISIS is funded by Qatar, who're far more extremists than Saudi Arabia on the funding issue generally, and by Saudi individuals, rather than the government.

[human strike]

It's a spy agency. ISIS stands for International Secret Intelligence Service and it is headed by a woman called Malory Archer.

[USAneedsCommunism]

Hello comrade, hi, this is the best I could find in counterpunch.org, about what is ISIS. A great article explaining the roots of ISIS:

The Rise of ISIS
The West, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are Responsible for the Talibanization of Iraq

JUNE 24, 2014

by GILBERT MERCIER

Some call it ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), other call it ISIL (Islamic State In Iraq and the Levant), but whatever it is, this Jihadist army with territorial ambition has taken a new dimension. Jihadist fighters are nothing new. They’ve been around under other names like Mujahideen or “freedom fighters,” in Afghanistan, for more than 30 years. Just like al-Qaeda, ISIS is the secret love child of United States imperialism and the kings and sheiks of the Gulf states. In other words, in the Middle East, engineering of failed states has been on the US foreign policy agenda for decades. This was already at play in the early 1980s, when the Reagan administration — effectively run by Vice President George Bush Sr — backed Saddam Hussein in Iraq’s war against Iran.

An all-out regional sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites might not have been the goal, but it is certainly the result. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the region should have known that Iraq, Libya and Syria, without strongmen like Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and Bashar al-Assad at their helm, were likely to implode into chaos. Who might ultimately profit from fueling a fratricidal war within Islam? Could this be a strategy of ash and ruins, preliminary to the expansion of the Jewish state into the so-called Greater Israel?

In 2003, under the pretext of a war on terror, the US invaded Iraq. Eleven years later, it is the Jihadists of ISIS who can say “mission accomplished.” Iraq and Syria are in ruins, soaked with the blood of several hundred thousand people, and millions of their nationals are scattered to the wind as refugees. As this tragedy continues for Iraqis and Syrians, their former government officials are enjoying their retirements with hobbies such as painting, without facing international tribunals for war crimes, such as using depleted uranium weapons in civilian areas. They are more eager than ever to rewrite history and pass the blame to someone else. What could have gone so wrong?

Policymakers in the US and European Union, as well as their mainstream media echo chambers, act as if they have been caught off guard by the rise of ISIS. Were they sleeping at the wheel when their Machiavellian policy of playing Sunnis against Shiites, using Islamist fundamentalists soldiers of fortune, blew up into their faces. Large swaths of Iraq and Syria have been taken by a 60,000-strong Jihadist army. They are on the move, are combat hardened and now have their own funds. ISIS is estimated to possess more than $2.3 billion in assets.

When ISIS took Mosul in its three-day offensive, which also gave it control of Tikrit, it robbed all the assets of Mosul Central Bank: around $500 million plus a large amount of gold. Consequently, the Jihadists of ISIS do not have to rely on the deep pockets of Qatar and Saudi Arabia anymore and are no longer the tools of Saudis or Qataris. They have the numbers, plenty of money to make new recruits and buy weapons, and their own agenda. ISIS is stronger and more ambitious than al-Qaeda ever was. ISIS wants to redraw the map of the Middle East.

ISIS: Out of Imperialism’s Pandora’s Box

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has rightly accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of having sponsored the Jihadists of ISIS for about three years, ever since the start of the Syrian civil war. Al-Maliki should also blame the US and its European allies. By invading Iraq in 2003, toppling Saddam Hussein, and then fostering and sponsoring of the Jihadists in Syria since 2011, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the US have opened a geopolitical pandora’s box. Out of it came ISIS. United States foreign policy has been schizophrenic for decades, but it recently reached the apex of contradiction: to please Saudis and Qataris, Washington has supported the Jihadist fighters against Assad in Syria, and simultaneously in Iraq, Washington has supported (sort of) al-Maliki’s government against those same Jihadists.

The outcome was predictable, and one could wish that top policymakers would be held accountable for this crime of astonishing stupidity. As early as February 2012, we were raising concerns that Syria’s civil/proxy war could easily become a full-blown regional sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Again, on June 26, 2012, I commented in a Russia Today (RT) interview that the US was backing up a de facto Talibanization of the Middle East, just like the Reagan administration did in Afghanistan during the 1980s.

Welcome to Jihadistan!

The Islamist fighters thrived first in Iraq, where they seized on the opportunities presented by the toppling of Saddam Hussein, the US withdrawal, and a Shiite-dominated Iraqi government that largely failed to be inclusive of Sunnis. Then in 2011, ISIS and its many affiliates took advantage of a weakened Assad government in Syria. Flush with petro-dollars from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, they quickly became Assad’s leading military opposition. The Jihadists of ISIS are an Islamist foreign legion. They come from, not only the entire Islamic world, but also Europe. Thousands joined their ranks in Syria. The leader of ISIS is an Iraqi called al-Baghdadi. ISIS controls Syria’s southeast and all Iraq’s Sunni-majority area. The goal of ISIS is to impose a Caliphate, i.e. an Islamist state under strict sharia law to encompass much of the Arab world.

Who is Afraid of ISIS?

The rise of ISIS is so concerning that it has motivated some abrupt reversal of alliances and made some strange bedfellows. On June 18, 2014, the Obama administration announced that 300 so-called military advisers would be sent to Iraq. Reading between the lines, this means that thousands of US special forces will be sent to secure the Iraqi oil fields and the Green Zone in Baghdad. The crisis has provoked a rapprochement between Washington and Teheran. Iran has sent at least 2,000 of its revolutionary guards to protect Baghdad. At least for the time being, American and Iranian special forces will be allied against ISIS.

Down the line, Iran’s military involvement could grow. The ISIS crisis will also be an opportunity for Assad’s troops, with the help of Hezbollah, to maintain their momentum. Those who should be most concerned about the Jihadists’ blitzkrieg in Iraq might be ISIS’ own biological fathers: the kings and sheiks of the Gulf States. If ISIS takes Baghdad, who can stop the Jihadist march on Doha (Qatar), Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), or even Amman (Jordan), in a most unwelcome return of the prodigal son.

Gilbert Mercier is the Editor in Chief of News Junkie Post, where this essay originally appeared.








I am under the impression it is related to the Taliban, I've heard vaguely that the US trained them, but I don't really know anything about their politics/goals/whatever. Can someone help and it would be great if you gave me some reading material to look through. Thank you!

[USAneedsCommunism]

Here is another great mind-opening article about ISIS:

What Did the White House Know?

Did Obama Know that ISIS Planned to Invade Iraq?

by MIKE WHITNEY

Source: Counterpunch.org

“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

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. In fact, the de facto partitioning of Iraq has already taken place. The Sunnis have basically seized the part of the country where they plan to live. The Kurds have nailed down their own territory, and the Shia will get Baghdad and the rest, including Basra. So, the division of Iraq has already a done deal, just as long as al Maliki doesn’t gum up the works by deploying his army to retake the parts of the country that are now occupied by ISIS. But the Obama team probably won’t allow that to happen, mainly because the bigshots in Washington like things the way they are now. They want an Iraq that is broken into smaller chunks and ruled by tribal leaders and warlords. That’s what this is all about, splitting up the country along the lines that were laid out in an Israeli plan authored by Oded Yinon 30 years ago. That plan has already been implemented which means Iraq, as we traditionally think of it, no longer exists. It’s kaput. Obama and Co. made sure of that. They weren’t satisfied with just killing a million Iraqis, polluting the environment, poisoning the water, destroying the schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, and leaving them to scrape by on meager rations, foul water and a tattered electrical grid. They had to come back and annihilate the state itself, erase the lines on the map, and remove any trace of a nation that was once a prosperous Middle East hub. Now the country is gone, vanished overnight. Poof. Now you see it, now you don’t.

Of course, al Maliki could try to reverse the situation, but he’s got his own problems to deal with. It’s going to be hard enough for him just to hold onto power, let alone launch a sustained attack on a disparate band of cutthroats who are bent on wreaking havoc on oil wells, critical infrastructure, pipelines, reservoirs, etc as well as killing as many infidels as humanly possible. No matter how you cut it, al Maliki is going to have his hands full. Obama has already made it plain, that he’s gunning for him and won’t rest until he’s gone. In fact, Secretary of State John Kerry is in the Middle East right now trying to drum up support for the “Dump Maliki” campaign. His first stopover was Cairo. Here’s a wrap-up form the Sunday Times:

“Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Cairo on Sunday morning on the first leg of a trip that is intended to hasten the formation of a cross-sectarian government in Iraq. In his swing through Middle East capitals, Mr. Kerry plans to send two messages on Iraq. One is that Arab states should use their influence with Iraqi politicians and prod them to quickly form an inclusive government. Another is that they should crack down on funding to the Sunni militants in the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The group is largely self-sustaining because of success in extortion and its plundering of banks in Mosul, Iraq. But some funding “has flowed into Iraq from its neighbors,” said a senior official on Mr. Kerry’s plane.” (Kerry Arrives in Cairo on Trip to Push for New Iraqi Government, New York Times)

How’s that for priorities? First we get rid of al Maliki, says Kerry, then we move on to less important matters, like that horde of jihadi desperados who are descending on Baghdad like a swarm of locusts. Doesn’t that seem a little backasswards to you, dear reader?

And why isn’t Obama worried about a jihadi attack on Baghdad? Think of it: If they did attack Baghdad and the capital fell into jihadi hands, then what? Well, then the Dems would take the blame, they’d get their butts whooped in the upcoming midterms, and Madame Hillary would have to take up needlepoint because her chances of winning the 2014 presidential balloting would drop to zero. So, the fallout would be quite grave. Still, Obama’s not sweating it, in fact, he’s not the least bit worried. Why?

Could it be that he knows something that we don’t know? Could it be that US Intel agents have already made contact with these yahoos and gotten a commitment that they won’t attack Baghdad if they are allowed to remain in the predominantly Sunni areas which they already occupy? Is that it? Did Obama offer the Baathists and Takfiris a quid pro quo which they graciously accepted?

It’s very likely, mainly because it achieves Obama’s strategic objective of establishing a de facto partition that will remain in effect unless al Maliki can whip up an army to retake lost ground which looks doubtful at this point.

But, here’s the glitch; al Maliki is not a quitter, and he’s not going anywhere. In fact he’s digging in his heels. He’s not going to be blackmailed by the likes of Obama. He’s going to this fight tooth and nail. And he’s going to have help too, because young Shia males are flocking to the recruiting offices to join the army and the militias. And then there’s Russia; in a surprise announcement Russian president Vladimir Putin offered to assist al Maliki in the fight against the terrorists, a move that is bound to enrage Washington. Here’s a clip from the Daily Star:

“Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday offered Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki Moscow’s total backing for the fight against jihadist fighters who have swept across the Middle East country.

“Putin confirmed Russia’s complete support for the efforts of the Iraqi government to speedily liberate the territory of the republic from terrorists,” the Kremlin said in a statement following a phone call between the two leaders…

Russia is one of the staunchest allies of Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad and has helped prop up his regime during three years of fighting against a hotchpotch of rebel groups, including the ISIL.” ( Putin offers Iraq’s Maliki ‘complete support’ against jihadists, Daily Star)

That makes a third front in which Russia and the US will be on opposite sides. It’s just like the good old days, right? Putin seems to be resigned to the idea that Moscow and Washington are going to be at loggerheads in the future. He’s not only opposed to a “unitary world order”, he’s doing something about it, putting himself and his country’s future at risk in order to stop the empire’s relentless expansion and vicious wars of aggression. Needless to say, proxy wars like this can lead to rapid escalation which is always a concern when both parties have nuclear weapons at their disposal. Now check this out from the Oil Price website:

“Here’s why the threat goes beyond Iraq and Syria…Modern Syria is bordered by Turkey to the north, Iraq to the east, Jordan and Israel to the south and Lebanon to the west.

‘Greater Syria’ incorporates most of the territories of each.

This is what ‘Syria’ means in the mind of Middle Easterners, says Joshua Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, and author of the respected blog SyriaComment.com

‘If we can teach people that so many Arabs still think of Syria as Greater Syria, they will begin to understand the extent to which Sykes-Picot remains challenged in the region,’ said Landis.

Sykes-Picot, of course refers to the secret agreement drawn up by two British and French diplomats — Sir Mark Sykes and Francois George-Picot — at the end of Word War I dividing the spoils of the Ottoman Empires between Britain and France by drawing straight lines in the sand.

To this day, many Arabs refuse to accept that division and think of ‘Syria’ as ‘Greater Syria.’ Some go so far as to include the Arab countries of North Africa – which from the Nile to the Euphrates forms ‘the Fertile Crescent,’ the symbol of many Muslim countries from Tunisia to Turkey. And some even go as far as including the island of Cyprus, saying it represents the star next to the crescent.

Given that, anyone who thinks ISIS will stop with Iraq is delusional.” (Insiders reveal real US aims in redrawing map of ME: Greater Syria, oil price)

Interesting, eh? So, if Mr. Landis is right, then the fracas in Iraq and Syria might just be the tip of the iceberg. It could be that Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh –who we think are the driving force behind this current wave of violence–have a much more ambitious plan in mind for the future. If this new method of effecting regime change succeeds, then the sky’s the limit. Maybe they’ll try the same stunt in other countries too, like Turkey, Tunisia, Cyprus, and all the way to North Africa. Why not? If the game plan is to Balkanize Arab countries wholesale and transform them into powerless fiefdoms overseen by US proconsuls and local warlords, why not go on a regime change spree?

By the way, according to the Telegraph, Obama and friends knew what ISIS was up to, and knew that the terrorist group was going to launch attacks on cities in the Sunni territories, just as they have. Get a load of this:

“Five months ago, a Kurdish intelligence “asset” walked into a base and said he had information to hand over. The capture by jihadists the month before of two Sunni cities in western Iraq was just the beginning, he said.
There would soon be a major onslaught on Sunni territories.

The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (Isis), a renegade offshoot of al-Qaeda, was about to take its well-known cooperation with leftovers of the regime of Saddam Hussein, and his former deputy Izzat al-Douri, to a new level.

His handlers knew their source of old, and he had always proved reliable, officials told The Telegraph. So they listened carefully as he said a formal alliance was about to be signed that would lead to the takeover of Mosul, the biggest city north of Baghdad, home to two million people. …

‘We had this information then, and we passed it on to your (British) government and the US government,’ Rooz Bahjat, a senior lieutenant to Lahur Talabani, head of Kurdish intelligence, said. ‘We used our official liaisons.’

‘We knew exactly what strategy they were going to use, we knew the military planners. It fell on deaf ears.’ (How US and Britain were warned of Isis advance in Iraq but ‘turned a deaf ear, Telegraph)

“Deaf ears”?

I’m not buying it. I think the intelligence went straight to the top, where Obama and his neocon colleagues came up with the plan that is unfolding as we speak. They figured, if they just look the other way and let these homicidal madhatters seize a few cities and raise a little Hell, they’d be able to kill two birds with one stone, that is, get rid of al Mailiki and partition the country at the same time. But, it’s not going to work out like Obama expects, mainly because this is just about the dumbest plan ever conjured up. I would give it an 80 percent chance blowing up in Obama’s face in less than a month’s time. This turkey has failure written all over it.

As for the sectarian issue, well, Iraq was never a sectarian society until the war. The problems arose due to a deliberate policy to pit one sect against the other in order to change the narrative of what was really going on the ground. And what was really going on was a very successful guerilla war was being waged by opponents of the US occupation who were launching in excess of 100 attacks per day on US soldiers. To change the storyline–which was causing all kinds of problems at home where support for the war was rapidly eroding–US counterinsurgency masterminds concocted a goofy plan to blow up the Golden Dome Mosque, blame it on the Sunnis, and then unleash the most savage, genocidal counterinsurgency operation of all-time. The western media were instructed to characterize developments in Iraq as part of a bloody civil war between Shia and Sunnis. But it was all a lie. The bloodletting was inevitable result of US policy which the Guardian effectively chronicled in a shocking, but indispensable hour-long video which can be seen here. James Steele: America’s mystery man in Iraq - video

The US made every effort to fuel sectarian animosities to divert attention from the attacks on US soldiers. And due to a savage and deceptive counterinsurgency plan that employed death squads, torture, assassinations, and massive ethnic cleansing, they succeeded in confusing Iraqis as to who was really behind the daily atrocities, the human rights violations and the mountain of carnage.

You’d have to be a fool to blame al-Maliki for any of this. As brutal as he may be, he’s not responsible for the divisions in Iraqi society. That’s all Washington’s doing. Just as Washington is entirely responsible for the current condition of the country and for the million or so people who were killed in the war.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition.




I am under the impression it is related to the Taliban, I've heard vaguely that the US trained them, but I don't really know anything about their politics/goals/whatever. Can someone help and it would be great if you gave me some reading material to look through. Thank you!

[Prometeo liberado]

QUOTE=dirty doxxer;2763151]I am under the impression it is related to the Taliban, I've heard vaguely that the US trained them, but I don't really know anything about their politics/goals/whatever. Can someone help and it would be great if you gave me some reading material to look through. Thank you![/QUOTE]

You're all wrong:

ISIS, the International Secret Intelligence Service in*New York City, suave and profoundly self-centered master spy Sterling Archer deals with global*espionage

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

CIA front group

[BIXX]

I was hoping someone would reference Archer :laugh:

Thank you all!

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

It's a spy agency. ISIS stands for International Secret Intelligence Service and it is headed by a woman called Malory Archer.

These guys have ruined that name for 'Archer' / 'Archer Vice' fans :glare:

[paranoidandroid]

Just talking theoretically here but..

These guys are connected to the Syrian Rebels? Correct? The same Syrian rebels which are being given weapons and funds by the US of A.

Which would mean that the Iraqi government would be looking to thier American buddies to try and dig them out, though this would be hard enough to sell to the American people it seems very likely sooner or later. And since ISIS is operating in both Syria and Iraq, it gives them "cause" to try and get troops into Syria. Not that I'm condoning Assad's actions but I still think this is a classic example of American regime change, just like when they co-operated with the fascists in Ukraine, all to further thier own globalist agenda.

I'm not putting forward some sort of conspiracy theory, this is just part of what I'm getting from these events, but it seems to me like the Americans had some sort of hand in letting ISIS happen.. :confused:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

ISIS has actually been at conflict with other Syrian rebel groups, including the al-qaeda branch al-Nusra, the Kurdish groups, and groups associated with the FSA. They have a nation-building project which is not consistent with these other groups, and are even more extreme in their push to impose conservative forms of Shariah law.

[hatzel]

Nice to see that the latest reincarnation of TrotskistMarx - who, if my memory serves me well, was originally banned for, amongst other things, having a flagrantly antisemitic blog - has seen fit to tell us that Obama's 'neocon colleagues' had ISIS fuck up Iraq so the Jews can finally conquer Baghdad. Still going strong, babe.

[khad]

Just talking theoretically here but..

These guys are connected to the Syrian Rebels? Correct? The same Syrian rebels which are being given weapons and funds by the US of A.

Which would mean that the Iraqi government would be looking to thier American buddies to try and dig them out, though this would be hard enough to sell to the American people it seems very likely sooner or later. And since ISIS is operating in both Syria and Iraq, it gives them "cause" to try and get troops into Syria. Not that I'm condoning Assad's actions but I still think this is a classic example of American regime change, just like when they co-operated with the fascists in Ukraine, all to further thier own globalist agenda.

I'm not putting forward some sort of conspiracy theory, this is just part of what I'm getting from these events, but it seems to me like the Americans had some sort of hand in letting ISIS happen.. :confused:
There's no grand conspiracy here. ISIS actively recruits from other rebel groups, so inevitably they have guys joining who received training from the CIA in Jordan or the MIT in Turkey. One of their important field commanders in the east is that guy Saddam Abu-Jamal, who used to serve as Salim Idriss's SMC representative on the eastern front. Most of the former SMC-aligned FSA in the east have joined ISIS.

Just yesterday, it was reported that the leader of Nusra Front in the key border town of Albu Kamal defected to ISIS with all of his troops. This was after supposedly swearing vengeance after an ISIS diversionary raid on the town left almost a hundred dead in April.


ISIS has actually been at conflict with other Syrian rebel groups, including the al-qaeda branch al-Nusra, the Kurdish groups, and groups associated with the FSA. They have a nation-building project which is not consistent with these other groups, and are even more extreme in their push to impose conservative forms of Shariah law.But members of all those groups see no issue with joining ISIS, even the Kurds. The ability of ISIS to pull recruits from just about wherever makes them the most influential insurgent group in the region by a country mile. Perhaps even in the recent history of the world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/isis-recruits-kurdish-youth-creating-a-potential-new-risk-in-a-peaceful-part-of-iraq/2014/06/23/2961ea2e-defd-4123-8e31-c908f583c5de_story.html


Kurdish authorities say a small contingent of Kurdish youths — around 150 in all, about a third of whom are from Halabja — has in recent months joined the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has seized a vast swath of Iraqi territory.

Some Kurdish intelligence officials fear that with ISIS’s gains, more local youths will join the jihadists and that the radical ideology could creep beyond Arab Iraq and into Iraqi Kurdistan, which has so far remained an oasis of calm and order.

The presence of Kurdish fighters in the extremist militant group highlights how effectively ISIS’s recruitment efforts are reaching disenfranchised youths across Iraq’s ethnic divide. Most Kurds are Sunni Muslims, like the insurgents, but have their own language and culture.

A top local intelligence official in Halabja, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media, said ISIS is already operating “cells” inside the town, appealing to bored and underemployed young people to join their fight.

One local man, Mariwan Hallabji, has become an ISIS commander and currently serves on a front line against Kurdish pesh merga security forces outside the city of Kirkuk, the official said.

[The Modern Prometheus]

The PKK should really start to take advantage of ISIS being stretched so thin now and get them out of the Kurdish regions. The Kurds are well used to fighting and they are not going to cut and run like the Iraq army. I really can't see the Kurds taking to ISIS extreme brand of Islam either as they tend to be a pretty progressive bunch. If the Kurds could take advantage of this current situation then perhaps they could form a country of their own finally.

In the end ISIS fast gains may become their downfall. Just because you are currently occupying a territory does not mean the people want you there and if the ISIS fighters are stretched thin enough i can see other groups taking the opportunity to kick them out of that area.

[exeexe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant