Todo sobre ISIS/Estado Islámico - Aquí

[Ondina]

¿Por qué no se termina de una vez por todas con todos estos criminales? ¿No quieren o no pueden? ¿O es que hay intereses más importantes que las vidas humanas que impidan terminar con esas bestias? De verdad que me cuesta trabajo entender que en pleno siglo XXI la comunidad internacional se vea imposibilitada para erradicar toda esa barbarie de alguna forma tendríamos que sentirnos responsables cada vez que se producen unos hechos tan criminales, tan deleznables, tan contra natura...como las decapitaciones de los cristianos coptos.

ISIS forma parte de una guerra proxy de la CIA que, en alianza con la Casa de Saud, alimenta desde 2007 un conflicto sectario con el fin de contrarrestar el riesgo de una mayor influencia de Irán en el Levante tras la desaparición de Sadam Husein y la disolución de la nación iraquí.

Las tensiones sectarias estallaron en 2011, cuando unas protestas mayormente pacíficas contra el régimen sirio surgidas en el marco de la primavera árabe fueron duramente reprimidas por las fuerzas leales a Al Assad y la revolución popular mutó en una guerra civil que ha incendiado las rivalidades entre sunies (anti Assad) y chiies (pro Assad). Cuatro años después, camino de los 300.000 muertes, el conflicto sigue vivo. Y es que derrocar a Al Assad se está probando más fastidioso de lo previsto debido a la resistencia de Rusia y China a sancionar el régimen sirio. Es en medio de los intentos de Moscú por implementar un plan de paz en 2013 con objeto de evitar una repetición de lo ocurrido en Libia que un oscuro grupo de perdedores iraquíes relacionados con Al Qaeda se unen a la yihad “hermana” wahabi/salafista del Frente Al Nusra en Siria (financiado igualmente por las monarquías suníes del Golfo y cuyos cabecillas fueron entrenados por USA), para emanciparse apenas un año después bajo el nombre de ISIS/ISIL, reconvertidos en algo salido de Universal Studios:

Uniformes ninja, vídeos promocionales al estilo MTV, banderas y camisetas de estética hipster, un lider-clérigo con túnica y turbante blandiendo barba y un Oyster Perpetual... de la noche a la mañana nos enteramos que ISIS se ha hecho con más de la mitad del territorio sirio a pesar del rechazo que generan entre la población local y entre los mismos rebeldes, que consideran a estos nuevos guerreros extremistas “foráneos” y anti-Islam, mientras facciones rivales denuncian que entre las filas de ISIS se cuentan mercenarios e infiltrados de los servicios secretos occidentales que viajan a París y a Tel Aviv.

Reforzados por varios miles de combatientes llegados del extranjero --jóvenes marginados de las barriadas europeas con ganas de aventura que entran y salen de la zona de combate a través Turquía (OTAN) y Jordania (país amigo de Occidente) por donde fluyen con igual facilidad cohetes y explosivos, maletines de dólares, petróleo de contrabando y sustancias psicotrópicas --ISIS/ISIL proclaman un califato e inician una meteórica expansión por territorio iraquí a bordo de sus Toyota pickup trucks montados con ametralladoras abandonadas por el Ejercito USA.

Esa es la historia resumida de ISIS, la historia surrealista de una banda criminal que de criminal que es resulta irreal y que si no existiera habría que inventarla, pues ISIS va servir para justificar una guerra en el Levante al termino de la cual habrán caído regímenes y se habrán modificado fronteras. Solo el nivel de atrocidad semejante al de ISIS podría justificar una guerra así sin que se abriera un debate social en EEUU y Europa potencialmente divisorio.

En junio de 2014 ISIS se dio a conocer al mundo proclamando el califato y a la vuelta de verano nos enteramos que han dado el salto a Libia, Egipto, Gaza, que su radio de acción se extiende a la frontera con Arabia, Líbano, Israel, que han establecido corresponsalías en Yemen, Afganistán, Pakistán (pronto harán acto de presencia en Ucrania??), mientras contemplamos atónitos sus atrocidades como si de una película de terror se tratara, mientras los expertos se aprestan a autentificar un chorreo incesante de grabaciones colgadas en internet de decapitaciones, crucifixiones, apedreamientos, quemados vivos, enjaulamientos, ametrallamientos, mutilaciones...

Obama ya ha pedido autorización al Congreso para intervenir militarmente. No contra contra Al Assad, ni en los Altos del Golán, ni en el kurdistán iraquí, ni el sur del Líbano o en Gaza o el Sinaí , sino autorización para actuar contra ISIS en el marco de la guerra global contra el terrorismo, que no es otra que la que se inició en 2002 con la invasión de Iraq bajo las premisa falsa de las armas de destrucción masiva. La petición inicial es para tres años.

Todo esto puede que te suene a teoría conspiratoria y no me extraña. Pero cuando lo ves desde la perspectiva de que la acción exterior de Washington en OM está dirigida a preservar la hegemonía del petrodólar y la seguridad del Gran Israel, todo cobra sentido. Sentido que difícilmente vas a encontrar si quieres verlo como una cruzada a favor de la democracia y la libertad. Si fuera así, hace meses que habrían acabado de un bombazo con los dementes de ISIS y cortado la financiación al yihadismo extremista.

 

[Zula]

Es aterrador, desde luego no pongo el vídeo porque es impactante, atroz, no puede haber más maldad, más sangre fría en estos sanguinarios criminales.
Si alguien quiere entrar al enlace y ver el vídeo de la ejecución, aviso que va a sentirse mal. Yo lo he visto y no llego a reponerme.

Una mujer es ejecutada en Siria por el Estado Islámico por vestir de rojo

Una ciudad de Siria tomada el Estado Islámico. Los yihadistas, la mayoría de ellos con la cabeza cubierta, caminan por la calle armados hasta los dientes con sus fusiles Kalashnikov y su indumentaria de camuflaje. Hacen exhibición de sus AK-47 con total impunidad.

Pocas mujeres se atreven a salir a la calle ante semejante panorama pero una de ellas lo hace, cubierta de la cabeza a los pies, vestida de negro pero comete el error, o tiene la osadía, de portar una chaqueta roja. Según el Islam que practican los yihadistas, las mujeres no deben vestir colores llamativos, al igual que no deben vestir ropa estrecha, ni transparente, ni masculina...

El mero hecho de vestir de rojo fue la condena a muerte de una mujer en esta ciudad siria. Un imán la conmina a arrodillarse y tras sermonear a un grupo de radicales armados, algunos de los cuales graban la escena en vídeo con sus teléfonos móviles, es ejecutada de un disparo en la cabeza efectuado con una pistola por otro individuo. Así es la justicia del Estado Islámico.


Leer más: Una mujer es ejecutada en Siria por el Estado Islámico por vestir de rojo http://www.larazon.es/internacional...por-vestir-de-rojo-NJ8874593#Ttt1yGCtjYkYI6vf

 

[el porqué de las cosas]

ISIS forma parte de una guerra proxy de la CIA que, en alianza con la Casa de Saud, alimenta desde 2007 un conflicto sectario con el fin de contrarrestar el riesgo de una mayor influencia de Irán en el Levante tras la desaparición de Sadam Husein y la disolución de la nación iraquí.

Las tensiones sectarias estallaron en 2011, cuando unas protestas mayormente pacíficas contra el régimen sirio surgidas en el marco de la primavera árabe fueron duramente reprimidas por las fuerzas leales a Al Assad y la revolución popular mutó en una guerra civil que ha incendiado las rivalidades entre sunies (anti Assad) y chiies (pro Assad). Cuatro años después, camino de los 300.000 muertes, el conflicto sigue vivo. Y es que derrocar a Al Assad se está probando más fastidioso de lo previsto debido a la resistencia de Rusia y China a sancionar el régimen sirio. Es en medio de los intentos de Moscú por implementar un plan de paz en 2013 con objeto de evitar una repetición de lo ocurrido en Libia que un oscuro grupo de perdedores iraquíes relacionados con Al Qaeda se unen a la yihad “hermana” wahabi/salafista del Frente Al Nusra en Siria (financiado igualmente por las monarquías suníes del Golfo y cuyos cabecillas fueron entrenados por USA), para emanciparse apenas un año después bajo el nombre de ISIS/ISIL, reconvertidos en algo salido de Universal Studios:

Uniformes ninja, vídeos promocionales al estilo MTV, banderas y camisetas de estética hipster, un lider-clérigo con túnica y turbante blandiendo barba y un Oyster Perpetual... de la noche a la mañana nos enteramos que ISIS se ha hecho con más de la mitad del territorio sirio a pesar del rechazo que generan entre la población local y entre los mismos rebeldes, que consideran a estos nuevos guerreros extremistas “foráneos” y anti-Islam, mientras facciones rivales denuncian que entre las filas de ISIS se cuentan mercenarios e infiltrados de los servicios secretos occidentales que viajan a París y a Tel Aviv.

Reforzados por varios miles de combatientes llegados del extranjero --jóvenes marginados de las barriadas europeas con ganas de aventura que entran y salen de la zona de combate a través Turquía (OTAN) y Jordania (país amigo de Occidente) por donde fluyen con igual facilidad cohetes y explosivos, maletines de dólares, petróleo de contrabando y sustancias psicotrópicas --ISIS/ISIL proclaman un califato e inician una meteórica expansión por territorio iraquí a bordo de sus Toyota pickup trucks montados con ametralladoras abandonadas por el Ejercito USA.

Esa es la historia resumida de ISIS, la historia surrealista de una banda criminal que de criminal que es resulta irreal y que si no existiera habría que inventarla, pues ISIS va servir para justificar una guerra en el Levante al termino de la cual habrán caído regímenes y se habrán modificado fronteras. Solo el nivel de atrocidad semejante al de ISIS podría justificar una guerra así sin que se abriera un debate social en EEUU y Europa potencialmente divisorio.

En junio de 2014 ISIS se dio a conocer al mundo proclamando el califato y a la vuelta de verano nos enteramos que han dado el salto a Libia, Egipto, Gaza, que su radio de acción se extiende a la frontera con Arabia, Líbano, Israel, que han establecido corresponsalías en Yemen, Afganistán, Pakistán (pronto harán acto de presencia en Ucrania??), mientras contemplamos atónitos sus atrocidades como si de una película de terror se tratara, mientras los expertos se aprestan a autentificar un chorreo incesante de grabaciones colgadas en internet de decapitaciones, crucifixiones, apedreamientos, quemados vivos, enjaulamientos, ametrallamientos, mutilaciones...

Obama ya ha pedido autorización al Congreso para intervenir militarmente. No contra contra Al Assad, ni en los Altos del Golán, ni en el kurdistán iraquí, ni el sur del Líbano o en Gaza o el Sinaí , sino autorización para actuar contra ISIS en el marco de la guerra global contra el terrorismo, que no es otra que la que se inició en 2002 con la invasión de Iraq bajo las premisa falsa de las armas de destrucción masiva. La petición inicial es para tres años.

Todo esto puede que te suene a teoría conspiratoria y no me extraña. Pero cuando lo ves desde la perspectiva de que la acción exterior de Washington en OM está dirigida a preservar la hegemonía del petrodólar y la seguridad del Gran Israel, todo cobra sentido. Sentido que difícilmente vas a encontrar si quieres verlo como una cruzada a favor de la democracia y la libertad. Si fuera así, hace meses que habrían acabado de un bombazo con los dementes de ISIS y cortado la financiación al yihadismo extremista.

http://www.cotilleando.com/foro/threads/el-oriente-medio-en-mapas.97850/

 

[Ondina]

Gracias @Zula por subir la información pero no voy a pinchar el link. El primer vídeo que vi de ISIS fue en junio, cuando buscaban darse a conocer antes de proclamar el califato. Salían unos tipos en un coche con las ventanillas bajadas y la música a tope, ametrallando a todo bicho viviente que no mereciera su aprobación (random total). Era tan chocante que resultaba irreal, como si de un videojuego se tratara. A la vuelta del verano sacaron el vídeo de la decapitación y evité darle al play.

No sé a quién puede interesar los vídeos de ISIS si no es a los aficionadas al gore. En su versión íntegra, desaparece cualquier interés informativo para dar paso al morbo puro y duro. Me pregunto qué pretenden diarios como La Razón publicando este tipo de material.

Cuando veo los cortes en el telediario, tengo la sensación de que estoy viendo el teaser de un director de culto, cuando no el trailer de una superproducción de Hollywood. Hay algo que no me cuadra y no se qué es, quizá las puestas en escena tipo Black Hawk Down o la caracterización de los malos tipo película de Bond. La violencia gratuita de ISIS y su afán de promoción mediante actos de crueldad extrema solo pueden estar dirigidas a generar odio al Islam entre el público occidental

ISIS no son yihadistas en el sentido tradicional, ni siquiera son una organización terrorista al uso. Son una secta de la peor especie que recluta a ignorantes y descerebrados que van a ser empleados como carne de cañón para combatir a los Hizbulá y que cuando hayan cumplido su función, caerán bajos las bombas aliadas mientras los cabecillas sorben champagne en algún lugar convenientemente occidentalizado.

 

[Eleonora de Toledo]

ALL Islamic Terrorism Funded By British Crown
Posted on 02/17/2015 | 14 Comments
Divide and conquer has been the primary modus operandiof the global elite for centuries. In 1947 the British carved Pakistan and Bangladesh (East Pakistan at the time) out of India with the intention of forever dividing the Hindus and Muslims of South Asia. Ghandi was jailed for “interfering with the revenue” when he criticized the East India Company for its opium trafficking habit.

The British Crown established the Aga Khan Foundation in Pakistan to fund its covert operations in the region. Prince Shah Karim Al Hussaini Aga Khan IV claims direct descent from the prophet Mohammed, just as the Illuminati bankers claim lineage to Jesus Christ. According to Forbes, he is one of the ten richest “royals” in the world with a fortune of over $800 million.

Born in Switzerland and a British citizen, he now resides in France, where he breeds race horses. He owns an entire island in the Bahamas, an exclusive yacht club in Sardinia where he parks his $150 million yacht, two Bombardier jets, and several estates around the world. In 2008 French President Nicolas Sarkozy exempted Aga Khan from all taxes, saving the British agent billions of dollars. In late February 2014 he became the first faith-based leader to address a joint session of Canada’s Zionist-controlled parliament.

The Aga Khan Foundation’s primary purpose is to aid and abet the global oligarchy of which he is very much a part. It specializes in spawning various types of Muslim extremists from mujahadeen to al Qaeda to Wahhabis to Takfiris to the al Nusra Front. All represent a right-wing medieval ideology collectively known as political Islam. They are deployed to attack nationalist and left-wing governments who refuse to be cowed by the Rothschild bankers and their corporate tentacles.

As major component of this strategy is that these extremist groups create a general hatred of Muslims in the Western world. Divide and conquer.

Aga Khan Foundation is a subsidiary of Crown Corporation, the umbrella under which many assets of the British Crown fall. This is the same Crown Corporation which owned Securacom, the private firm chaired by Marvin Bush which held the security contract on the World Trade Center in September 2001.

Starting to get the picture?

Every Islamic terrorist organization, without exception, is created by this Aga Khan/Muslim Brotherhood/Freemason/MI6 intelligence network to carry out the agenda of the global Sangreal bloodline oligarchy.

They were deployed to overthrow the Sukarno government in Indonesia in 1964, to defeat the leftist Tudeh Party in Iran in 1978, to overthrow leftist Prime Minister Nor Mohammed Taraki in Afghanistan in 1979, to attack Qaddafi’s Libyan progressive state from Exxon Mobil-controlled Chad and to harass Assad’s nationalist Syria for the past three decades.

The most recent incarnations of Crown-controlled terrorists include ISIS and Boko Haram. What follows is an excellent expose on the latter:

Boko Haram is CIA Covert Op

By Julie Lévesque Global Research, February 14, 2015

The objectives of the US military presence in Africa are well documented: counter Chinese influence and control strategic locations and natural resources including oil reserves. This was confirmed more than 8 years ago by the US State Department:

In 2007, US State Department advisor Dr. J. Peter Pham commented on AFRICOM’s strategic objectives of “protecting access to hydrocarbons and other strategic resources which Africa has in abundance, a task which includes ensuring against the vulnerability of those natural riches and ensuring that no other interested third parties, such as China, India, Japan, or Russia, obtain monopolies or preferential treatment.” (Nile Bowie, CIA Covert Ops in Nigeria: Fertile Ground for US Sponsored Balkanization Global Research, 11 April 2012)

Read more at: http://stop-imperialism.com/2015/02/16/6052/

Dean Henderson is the author of five books: Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network, The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries,Das Kartell der Federal Reserve, Stickin’ it to the Matrix & The Federal Reserve Cartel. You can subscribe free to his weekly Left Hook column @www.hendersonlefthook.wordpress.com

 

[Ondina]

http://www.cotilleando.com/foro/threads/el-oriente-medio-en-mapas.97850/

Mi bueno el link de los mapas, gracias.
http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml

En la serie histórica, va a haber que hacer una actualización pronto tipo "Islamic States ca. AD 2017"

 

[Eleonora de Toledo]

Boko Haram is CIA Covert Op
The objectives of the US military presence in Africa are well documented: counter Chinese influence and control strategic locations and natural resources including oil reserves. This was confirmed more than 8 years ago by the US State Department:

" In 2007, US State Department advisor Dr. J. Peter Pham commented on AFRICOM’s strategic objectives of “protecting access to hydrocarbons and other strategic resources which Africa has in abundance, a task which includes ensuring against the vulnerability of those natural riches and ensuring that no other interested third parties, such as China, India, Japan, or Russia, obtain monopolies or preferential treatment.” (Nile Bowie, CIA Covert Ops in Nigeria: Fertile Ground for US Sponsored Balkanization Global Research, 11 April 2012)


At the beginning of February, AFRICOM’s “head General David Rodriguez called for a large-scale US-led ‘counterinsurgency’ campaign against groups in West Africa during remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC:

In similar remarks at a the US Army West Point academy last week, US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) chief General Joseph Votel said that US commando teams must prepare for new deployments against Boko Haram and the Islamic State. ” (Thomas Gaist, US AFRICOM Commander Calls for “Huge” Military Campaign in West Africa, World Socialist Web Site, February 02, 2015)

Mark P. Fancher highlighted the hypocrisy and the “imperialist arrogance” of western countries, which “notwithstanding the universal condemnation of colonialism”, are evermore willing “to publicly declare (without apologies) their plans to expand and coordinate their military presence in Africa.” (Mark P. Fancher, Arrogant Western Military Coordination and the New/Old Threat to Africa, Black Agenda Report, 4 February 2015)

Now more troops from Benin, Cameroon, Niger, Nigeria and Chad are being sent to fight against Boko Haram.

This new war on yet another shadowy terrorist entity in Africa is reminiscent of the failed Kony 2012 propaganda campaign cloaked in humanitarian ideals. It is used as a smoke screen to avoid addressing the issue of the victims of the war on terror, the real causes of terrorism and to justify another military invasion. It is true that Boko Haram makes victims, however the goal of Western intervention in Africa is not to come to their rescue.

The deadliest conflict in the world since the Second World War and still raging is happening in Congo and the Western elite and its media couldn’t care less. That alone shows that military interventions are not intended to save lives.

To understand why the media focuses on Boko Haram, we need to know what it is and who is behind it. What is the underlying context, what interests are being served?

Is Boko Haram another US clandestine operation?

Boko Haram is based in northeast Nigeria, the most populated country and largest economy in Africa. Nigeria is the largest oil producer of the continent with 3.4% of the World’s reserves of crude oil.

In May 2014, African Renaissance News published an in-depth report on Boko Haram, wondering whether it could be another CIA covert operation to take control of Nigeria:

The greatest prize for AFRICOM and its goal to plant a PAX AMERICANA in Africa would be when it succeeds in the most strategic African country, NIGERIA. This is where the raging issue of BOKO HARAM and the widely reported prediction by the United States Intelligence Council on the disintegration of Nigeria by 2015 comes into perspective…(Atheling P Reginald Mavengira, “Humanitarian Intervention” in Nigeria: Is the Boko Haram Insurgency Another CIA Covert Operation? Wikileaks, African Renaissance News, May 08, 2014)

In the 70′s an 80′s Nigeria assisted several African countries “in clear opposition and defiance to the interests of the United States and its western allies which resulted in a setback for Western initiatives in Africa at the time.” (Ibid.)Nigeria exerted its influence in the region through the leadership of the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG, right), an army consisting of soldiers from various African countries and set up by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and which intervened in the Liberian civil war in the 90′s. Liberia was founded in 1821 by the US and led by American-Liberians for over a century.

The Western powers, first and foremost the US, are obviously not willing to let Africans have a multinational army in which they have no leading role. ACRI, which later became Africom, was formed in 2000 to contain Nigeria’s influence and counter ECOMOG, thus avoiding the emergence of an African military force led by Africans.

According to Wikileaks reports mentioned in Mavengira’s article above, the US embassy in Nigeria serves as an

“operating base for wide and far reaching acts of subversion against Nigeriawhich include but [are] not limited to eavesdropping on Nigerian government communication, financial espionage on leading Nigerians, support and funding of subversive groups and insurgents, sponsoring of divisive propaganda among the disparate groups of Nigeria and the use of visa blackmail to induce and coerce high ranking Nigerians into acting in favour of US interests.” (Mavengira, op., cit., emphasis added).

Mavengira is part of the GREENWHITE Coalition, “a citizen’s volunteer watchdog made up of Nigerians of all ethnic groups and religious persuasions.” He writes that the ultimate goal of the American clandestine operations in his country is “to eliminate Nigeria as a potential strategic rival to the US in the African continent.” (Ibid.) An investigation into Boko Haram by the Greenwhite Coalition revealed that the “Boko Haram campaign is a covert operation organized by the American Central Intelligence Agency, CIA and coordinated by the American Embassy in Nigeria.” The U.S has used its embassy for covert operations before. The one in Benghazi was proven to be a base for a covert gun-running operation to arm the mercenaries fighting against Bashar Al-Assad in Syria. As for the embassy in Ukraine, a video from November 2013 emerged recently showing a Ukrainian parliamentarian exposing it as the central point of yet another clandestine operation designed to foment civil unrest and overthrow the democratically-elected government.

The Greenwhite Coalition report on Boko Haram reveals a three stage plan of the National Intelligence Council of the United States to “Pakistanize” Nigeria, internationalize the crisis and divide the country under a UN mandate and occupying force. The plan “predicts” Nigeria’s disintegration for 2015. It is worth quoting at length:

The whole [National Intelligence Council] report actually is a coded statement of intentions on how [by] using destabilization plots the US plans to eventually dismember Nigeria […]

Stage 1: Pakistanizing Nigeria
With the scourge of Boko Haram as an existential reality, in the coming months the spate of bombings and attacks on public buildings are likely to escalate.

The goal is to exacerbate tension and mutual suspicion among adherents of the two faiths in Nigeria and leading to sectarian violence […]

Stage 2: Internationalizing the Crisis
[T]here will be calls from the United States, European Union and United Nations for a halt to the violence. […] For effect, there will be carpet bombing coverage by the International media on the Nigerian crisis with so-called experts discussing all the ramifications who will strive to create the impression that only benevolent foreign intervention could resolve the crisis.

Stage 3: The Great Carve out under UN Mandate
There will be proposals first for an international peace keeping force to intervene and separate the warring groups and or for a UN mandate for various parts of Nigeria to come under mandated occupying powers. Of course behind the scenes the US and its allies would have secretly worked out which areas of Nigeria to occupy guided as it were by naked economic interests […] (Ibid., emphasis added)

In 2012, Nile Bowie wrote:

The Nigerian Tribune has reported that Boko Haram receives funding from different groups from Saudi Arabia and the UK, specifically from the Al-Muntada Trust Fund, headquartered in the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia’s Islamic World Society [8]. During an interview conducted by Al-Jazeera with Abu Mousab Abdel Wadoud, the AQIM leader states that Algeria-based organizations have provided arms to Nigeria’s Boko Haram movement “to defend Muslims in Nigeria and stop the advance of a minority of Crusaders” [9].

It remains highly documented that members of Al-Qaeda (AQIM) and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who fought among the Libyan rebels directly received arms [10] and logistical support [11] from NATO bloc countries during the Libyan conflict in 2011[…]

Image(no se puede ver): Abdelhakim Belhadj, rebel leader during the 2011 war in Libya and former commander of the Al-Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

As covertly supporting terrorist organizations to achieve foreign policy aims appears to be the commanding prerequisite of foreign policy operations under the Obama Administration, Boko Haram exists as a separate arm of the US destabilization apparatus, aimed at shattering Africa’s most populous nation and biggest potential market. (Nile Bowie, CIA Covert Ops in Nigeria: Fertile Ground for US Sponsored Balkanization Global Research, 11 April 2012)


Reports also indicate that some Nigerian commanders may be involved in fuelling the insurgency.

According to the report, a Nigerian soldier in Borno state confirmed that Boko Haram attacked Gamboru Ngala in their presence but their commander asked them not to repel the attack. The soldier told BBC Hausa Service that choppers hovered in the air while the attacks were ongoing. 300 people were killed, houses and a market burnt while soldiers watched and were ordered not to render assistance to those being attacked. The soldier said that the Boko Haram insurgency will end when superior officers in the army cease to fuel it.

At the abductions of Chibok girls, one soldier in an interview told SaharaReporters,

“…we were ordered to arrest vehicles carrying the girls but just as we started the mission, another order was issued that we should pull back. I can assure you, nobody gave us any directives to look for anybody.”

Some soldiers suspect that their commanders reveal military operations to the Boko Haram sect. (Audu Liberty Oseni, Who is Protecting Boko Haram. Is the Nigerian Government involved in a Conspiracy?, africanexecutive.com, May 28, 2014)

Could it be that these commanders have been coerced by elements in the U.S. embassy, as suggested by the aforementioned Greewhite Coalition investigation?


Boko Haram: The next chapter in the fraudulent, costly, destructive and murderous war on terror?
It has been clearly demonstrated that the so-called war on terror has increased terrorism. As Nick Turse explained:

[Ten] years after Washington began pouring taxpayer dollars into counterterrorism and stability efforts across Africa and its forces first began operating from Camp Lemonnier [Djibouti], the continent has experienced profound changes, just not those the U.S. sought. The University of Birmingham’s Berny Sèbe ticks off post-revolutionary Libya, the collapse of Mali, the rise of Boko Haram in Nigeria, the coup in the Central African Republic, and violence in Africa’s Great Lakes region as evidence of increasing volatility. “The continent is certainly more unstable today than it was in the early 2000s, when the U.S. started to intervene more directly,” he told me. (Nick Turse, The Terror Diaspora: The U.S. Military and Obama’s Scramble for Africa, Tom Dispatch, June 18, 2013)


What exactly does the U.S. seek in Africa?
When it comes to overseas interventions, decades of history have shown that the stated intents of the U.S. Army are never its real intents. The real intent is never to save humans, but always to save profits and power. US-NATO interventions do not save. They kill.

US-led interventions since the beginning of the century have killed hundreds of thousands, if not over a million innocent people. It’s hard to tell because NATO does not really want to know how many civilians it kills. As The Guardian noted in August 2011, except for a brief period, there was “no high-profile international project dedicated to recording deaths in the Libya conflict”.

In February 2014, “at least 21,000 civilians [were] estimated to have died violent deaths as a result of the war” in Afghanistan according to Cost of War. As for Iraq, by May 2014 “at least 133,000 civilians [were] killed by direct violence since the invasion.”

As for Libya, the mainstream media first lied about the fact that Gaddafi initiated the violence by attacking peaceful protesters, a false narrative intended to demonize Gaddafi and galvanize public opinion in favour of yet another military intervention. As the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs reported, “violence was actually initiated by the protesters.”

It stated further:

The government responded to the rebels militarily but never intentionally targeted civilians or resorted to “indiscriminate” force, as Western media claimed […]

The biggest misconception about NATO’s intervention is that it saved lives and benefited Libya and its neighbors. In reality, when NATO intervened in mid-March 2011, Qaddafi already had regained control of most of Libya, while the rebels were retreating rapidly toward Egypt. Thus, the conflict was about to end, barely six weeks after it started, at a toll of about 1,000 dead, including soldiers, rebels, and civilians caught in the crossfire. By intervening, NATO enabled the rebels to resume their attack, which prolonged the war for another seven months and caused at least 7,000 more deaths. (Alan Kuperman, Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, September 2013)


Despite these figures, the media will once again try to convince us that what the world needs most at the moment is to get rid of the terrorist group Boko Haram and that a military intervention is the only solution, even though the so-called war on terror has actually increased terrorism globally. As Washington’s Blog pointed out in 2013, “global terrorism had been falling from 1992 until 2004… but has been skyrocketing since 2004.”

The Guardian reported back in November 2014:

The Global Terrorism Index recorded almost 18,000 deaths last year, a jump of about 60% over the previous year. Four groups were responsible for most of them: Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq and Syria; Boko Haram in Nigeria; the Taliban in Afghanistan; and al-Qaida in various parts of the world. (Ewen MacAskill, Fivefold increase in terrorism fatalities since 9/11, says report, The Guardian, November, 18, 2014)

What the Guardian fails to mention is that all these groups, including Boko Haram and the Islamic State, have been, in one way or another, armed, trained and financed by the US-NATO alliance and their allies in the Middle East.

Thanks to the covert support of Western countries, arms dealers and bankers profiting from killing and destruction, the war on terror is alive and well. The West advocates for endless military interventions, pretending to ignore the real causes of terrorism and the reason why it expands, hiding its role in it and thereby clearly showing its real intent: fuelling terrorism to destabilize and destroy nations, thus justifying military invasion and achieving their conquest of the African continent’s richest lands under the pretext of saving the world from terror.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/is-boko-haram-a-cia-covert-op-to-divide-and-conquer-africa/5431177

 

[Opinatrix]

Yo vivo en un país musulmán y suscribo lo que dices al 100%



Siento disentir contigo, pero qué están haciendo los de ISIS con yazidíes y kurdos cristianos? O se convierten al Islam o les matan/esclavizan.



Qué pasa en Pakistán con los sikhs y con los cristianos?





Y en Egipto?



En Nigeria?



En Sudán?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsJgW31DdCU

Y hay mucho proselitismo pro-islam ahora en Europa, por eso hay tantas conversiones.

El judaísmo en cambio si que es anti-conversión, por algo es que sólo lo toleran en las mujeres que se casan con judíos para que sus hijos también lo sean (debido a que sólo eres judío si tu madre lo es).

Y mi hermano vive en un país musulmán y dice también exactamente lo mismo que vosotras. Lo que más le impactó cuando llegó fue la ausencia total de pensamiento racional y de libertad. Ni les es permitido pensar autónomamente, ni parecen echarlo de menos.

 

[Arena]

Jamás veo los vídeos de esta gentuza y sigo sin entender porqué en tvs y periódicos -supusteamente serios, ja-sacan machaconamente sus imágenes.

 

[Eleonora de Toledo]

Guest Post: Interview With Paul Roberts On US-Russia Relationship & ISIS
Posted on 02/09/2015 | 2 Comments


EXCLUSIVE: Paul Roberts on US-Russia relationship & ISIS

© Paul Craig Roberts February 09 13:46 2015

This is preliminary interview SI has conducted with Paul Craig Roberts – a famous political journalist and author of “The End of Oil” (2004), “The End of Food” (2008) and “How America Was Lost” (2014).

SI: What is your opinion on further pressure on Russia from US and EU countries?

P.R.: At this time I do not know the outcome of the meeting in Moscow between Merkel, Hollande, and Putin. Probably, Merkel and Hollande are disturbed by the aggressive position that Washington has taken toward Russia and are fearful that Washington is pushing Europe into a conflict that Europe does not want. However, Merkel and Hollande cannot resolve the NATO/EU/Ukraine situation unless Merkel and Hollande are willing to break with Washington’s foreign policy and assert the right as sovereign states to conduct their own foreign policy. I doubt that Merkel and Hollande are this brave. Therefore, the most likely, although not certain, outcome of the Putin-Merkel-Hollande meeting will just be more meetings. As Merkel and Hollande are not negotiating from a position of independence, the most likely outcome after more meetings will be that Merkel and Hollande will say that they tried to reason with Putin but that Putin was unreasonable. Based on Lavrov’s meeting in Munich with the Europeans, the hope for any sign of intelligence and independence in Europe seems misplaced. Russian diplomacy relied on European independence, but as Putin has acknowledged Europe shows no independence from Washington. Putin has said that negotiating with vassals is pointless. Yet, Putin continues to do so. Washington does not recognize any valid interest except its own. Therefore, it is useless for Russia to negotiate with Washington and Washington’s EU vassals. To come to an agreement with Washington requires Russia’s surrender to Washington’s terms. Russia must hand over Crimea and stand aside while the Russian people in eastern and southern Ukraine, the “break-away” provinces, are slaughtered. Russia must support the hostile regime in Kiev with loans, grants, and low gas prices. That is the only deal Russia can get from Washington. So why is Russia wasting its time talking to the West? The only outcome of Russia’s diplomacy with the West is to give the West more time to build up its armaments and create more propaganda against Russia that justifies pre-emptive war against “the Russian threat.” I see two clear options for Russia. One is to disengage totally from the West. The entirety of the West is a morally depraved and economically bankrupt entity. There is no reason for a decent country like Russia to wish to be integrated with the evil that is the West. Russia has the option of abandoning the dollar payments system and all financial relationships with the West. By trying to be part of the West, Russia made a strategic error. Russia found herself dependent on Western financial systems that gave Washington power over Moscow and allowed Washington to place economic sanctions on Russia. It was Russia’s desire to be part of the West that made possible Washington’s sanctions and Washington’s propaganda against Russia. It was Russia’s desire to be accepted by the West that produced the weak Russian response to Washington’s coup in Kiev. Washington is using Ukraine against Russia. Washington is not going to permit an arrangement in which the “break-away” provinces are autonomous republics of Ukraine. Russia’s other clear option is to destroy NATO by ceasing immediately to sell energy resources to NATO members. Why should Russia empower its obvious enemies? Russia could also encourage Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal to default on their loans and rely on Russia, China, and the BRICS Bank for financing. Russia should also default on its loans to the West. Why should Russia pay an enemy that is trying to destroy her? At some point Russia will either have to surrender to Washington or demonstrate decisive action that causes Europe to abandon Washington. Alternatively, Russia can forget about the corrupt West and integrate with China and the East.

SI: What is your opinion about ISIS situation in Syria and Iraq?

P.R.: The Islamic State was created out of the Islamist forces that Washington assembled against Gaddafi in Libya. These forces were then sent to overthrow Assad in Syria. As Muslims flocked to ISIS’s banner and its military prowess grew, ISIS realized that it was a new and independent force consisting of radicalized Muslims. Radicalized Muslims are tired of Western domination and control of Muslim lands. Out of ISIS’s self-awareness, a new state has been created. It is stupid of Iran and Russia to help Washington defeat this new enemy of the West. It shows that both Iran and Russia do not yet fully appreciate the danger to their very existence that resides in Washington as Sauron gathers up the rings in order to control them all.

Read more at: http://stop-imperialism.com/2015/02/09/5779/

 

[Eleonora de Toledo]

Faulted for Avoiding ‘Islamic’ Labels to Describe Terrorism, White House Cites a Strategic Logic
By SCOTT SHANEFEB. 18, 2015

Photo

WASHINGTON — President Obama chooses his words with particular care when he addresses the volatile connections between religion and terrorism. He and his aides have avoided labeling acts of brutal violence by Al Qaeda, the so-called Islamic State and their allies as “Muslim” terrorism or describing their ideology as “Islamic” or “jihadist.”

With remarkable consistency — including at a high-profile White House meeting this week, “Countering Violent Extremism” — they have favored bland, generic terms over anything that explicitly connects attacks or plots to Islam.

Obama aides say there is a strategic logic to his vocabulary: Labeling noxious beliefs and mass murder as “Islamic” would play right into the hands of terrorists who claim that the United States is at war with Islam itself. The last thing the president should do, they say, is imply that the United States lumps the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims with vicious terrorist groups.

But Mr. Obama’s verbal tactics have become a target for a growing chorus of critics who believe the evasive language is a sign that he is failing to look squarely at the threat from militant Islam. The vague phrasing, they say, projects uncertainty and weakness at a time when extremists claiming to fight for Islam threaten America and its interests around the world.

Continue reading the main story

Graphic: From Syria, an Atlas of a Country in Ruins
“Part of this is a semantic battle, but it’s a semantic battle that goes to deeper issues,” said Peter Wehner, a veteran of the past three Republican administrations and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. “Self-deception is not a good idea in politics or international affairs. We’re lying to ourselves, and the world knows it.”

While the most vehement criticism has come from Mr. Obama’s political opponents on the right, a few liberals and former security officials have begun to echo the criticism.

“You cannot defeat an enemy that you do not admit exists,” Michael T. Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general and director of the Defense Intelligence Agency from 2012 to 2014, told a House hearing last week. “I really, really strongly believe that the American public needs and wants moral, intellectual and really strategic clarity and courage on this threat.”

Akbar Ahmed, chairman of Islamic studies at American University and author of a book on Islam in America, said he supported the Obama administration’s care in avoiding a counterproductive smear of all Muslims. But he said the president sometimes seemed to bring an academic approach to a visceral, highly politicized discussion.

“Obama’s reaching a point where he may have to ditch this almost scholastic position,” Mr. Ahmed said. “He sounds like a distinguished professor in the ivory tower, and he may have to come down into the hurly-burly of politics.”

Continue reading the main story
GRAPHIC
Where the Foreign Fighters in Iraq and Syria Are Coming From
A visual guide to the crisis in Iraq and Syria.


OPEN GRAPHIC
Addressing the extremism conference on Wednesday, Mr. Obama acknowledged the complaints and took pains to try to explain his approach.

“Leading up to this summit, there’s been a fair amount of debate in the press and among pundits about the words we use to describe and frame this challenge, so I want to be very clear about how I see it,” the president said. “Al Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it are desperate for legitimacy. They try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam.”Continue reading the main story
But Mr. Obama said that “we must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie.” The operatives of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, “are not religious leaders — they’re terrorists,” he said.

The president’s comments suggest that the criticism has disturbed him. “You know your talking points are no longer working when you have to talk about your talking points,” said Peter D. Feaver, a political scientist at Duke who was deeply involved in shaping President George W. Bush’s language while he worked at the White House from 2005 to 2007.

Choosing what to say about the enemy during the long campaign against Al Qaeda, and now the Islamic State, was a challenge for Mr. Bush as well as for Mr. Obama, Mr. Feaver said. The nation’s terrorist enemies define themselves as fighters for Islam, lace their propaganda with quotes from the Quran and claim to speak for all Muslims. But an overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide reject the Qaeda ideology and condemn terrorist attacks.

Continue reading the main storyVideo

PLAY VIDEO|5:20
The Evolution of ISIS
The Evolution of ISIS
Key points in the terrorist group’s rapid growth and the slowing of its advance as it faces international airstrikes and local resistance.

Mr. Bush, too, struggled at times to find the right terms for the fight against Al Qaeda. He used and then quickly dropped the word “crusade” for the American campaign against terrorism, concerned that he was playing into the terrorists’ view of a centuries-long clash of civilizations.

He favored the formula “war on terror,” but was battered by critics inside and outside the government who said that it was impossible to wage war against a tactic, Mr. Feaver recalled. For months before a major speech by the president in 2005, different agencies fought over what, exactly, Mr. Bush should call the enemy.

In the end, he effectively threw up his hands. “Some call this evil Islamic radicalism,” he said in the speech. “Others, militant jihadism. Still, others Islamo-fascism. Whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam.” But he went on to regularly use the term “Islamic radicalism,” which Mr. Obama has shunned.

Many advocates for Muslims appreciate Mr. Obama’s care in keeping their religion separate from the terrorist groups whose claims they reject. “We support the Obama administration and the administration before them for not falling into the Al Qaeda-ISIS trap of saying this is a religious war,” said Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, a national group.

But even Ms. Khera complained that the name of the White House conference on the topic was too vague. While the label was “violent extremism,” the vast majority of speakers spoke only about Islamic extremism, ignoring all other kinds, she said. “If the summit were called ‘Countering ISIS,’ that would be fine,” she said. “But it’s not.”

Daniel Benjamin, who served as the State Department’s top counterterrorism official from 2009 to 2012, said he believed that the dispute was a “pseudocontroversy” driven largely by domestic politics, even if it has produced some clumsy moments in the White House press room. What the debate has missed, he said, is that any American president has to think about how his words are received overseas.

“Our allies against ISIS in the region are out there every day saying, ‘This is not Islam,’ ” said Mr. Benjamin, now at Dartmouth. “We don’t want to undermine them. Any good it would do to trumpet ‘Islamic radicalism’ would be overwhelmed by the damage it would do to those relationships.”

Julie Hirschfeld Davis contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on February 19, 2015, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Faulted for Avoiding ‘Islamic’ Labels. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/u...hite-house-cites-a-strategic-logic.html?_r=0 

 

[Astrid]

Lo mejor que he leido sobre ISIS. Es un articulo de Graeme Woods para la revista The Atlantic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Graeme Woods es profesor de Ciencias Politicas en Yale University, New Haven CT. No traigo el articulo completo ya que es muy largo y en ingles, pero lo recomiendo a todo el que le interese el tema.