IS and terrorism – Vivid consequence of interfering in an independent state’s internal affairs


When IS has risen to be the most wicked and terrified terrorist group that the world has known, there’s a question arise: Where did this terrorist organization came out?
Most of the Western countries say that ISIL was effectively created by Bashar al-Assad and he created the conditions in Syria that allowed ISIL to flourish. But, there is a hard-to-believe allegation that is given the CIA-funded al Qaeda had been used as a facade by the US to achieve its own geopolitical and national interests over the past two decades, so ISIS was nothing more than al Qaeda 2.0, even there was no actual evidence of just this.
That may all have changed now when a declassified secret US government document obtained by the public interest law firm, Judicial Watch, shows that Western governments deliberately allied with al-Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups to topple Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad.
According to investigative reporter Nafeez Ahmed in Medium, the leaked document reveals that in coordination with the Gulf states and Turkey, the West intentionally sponsored violent Islamist groups to destabilize Assad, despite anticipating that doing so could lead to the emergence of an ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
So, apparently the Pentagon foresaw the likely rise of the “Islamic State” as a direct consequence of the strategy, but described this outcome as a strategic opportunity to “isolate the Syrian regime”.
And, now that ISIS is running around the middle east, cutting people's heads of in 1080p quality and Hollywood-quality (perhaps literally) video, the US has a credible justification to sell billions worth of modern, sophisticated weapons in the region in order to "modernize" and "replenish" the weapons of such US allies as Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iraq. And that the US military-industrial complex is a winner every time war breaks out anywhere in the world (usually with the assistance of the CIA) is clear to everyone by now.
The revelations contradict the official line of Western government on their policies in Syria, and raise disturbing questions about secret Western support for violent extremists abroad, while using the burgeoning threat of terror to justify excessive mass surveillance and crackdowns on civil liberties at home.
The newly declassified DIA document from 2012 confirms that the main component of the anti-Assad rebel forces by this time comprised Islamist insurgents affiliated to groups that would lead to the emergence of ISIS. Despite this, these groups were to continue receiving support from Western militaries and their regional allies.
Noting that “the Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” the document states that “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition,” while Russia, China and Iran “support the [Assad] regime.”
The 7-page DIA document states that al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the precursor to the ‘Islamic State in Iraq,’ (ISI) which became the ‘Islamic State in Iraq and Syria,’ “supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and through the media.”
In a section titled ‘The Future Assumptions of the Crisis,’ the DIA report predicts that while Assad’s regime will survive, retaining control over Syrian territory, the crisis will continue to escalate “into proxy war.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that any attempts to overthrow the government in Syria could lead to a failed state like Iraq or Libya. Speaking on the US network CBS, Putin said that "Syrians and only Syrians" should be able to decide the fate of their country.
"There's no other solution to the Syrian crisis other than strengthening the effective government structures and rendering them help in fighting terrorism, but at the same time urging them to engage in positive dialogue with the rational opposition and conduct reform," Putin said.
There was no consensus between Western countries and Russia on how to proceed with the Syrian conflict and "there's certainly a debate on which enemy to fight first".
President Putin is quite right. Only a country has to determine who  and how their country should be governed not an outside force. That's the roots and foundation of  democracy. European Union/NATO and U.S. should learn from the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. That's the main reason for the creation of ISIS, ISIL, etc; which resulted in the current refugee crisis. With creation of this refugee crisis, terrorism has been exported world-wide. Terrorism shall escalate when we lest expected it. Let's keep our fingers crossed with vigilance.
If the government does collapse in Syria, it does look as though you have a Libya type fail state situation with Isis in much more control, as we have seen in the midst whenever the west liberats a country, they always just leave it in ruins and let extremists quietly build up again take over then the west has to go bomb it all over again, look at Afghanistan and don't see any evidence of this changing, Sadly I don't think fixing any of these countries after war's is an aim.
It absolutely could lead to a failed state, as the overthrow of two dictators in the region (namely Saddam and Gaddafi) has demonstrably shown. This isn't just "Russian propaganda"; the proof is right there to see. I don't think anyone in the West is going to defend Assad as a good man, but he governs well in an area that is prone to various chaotic uprisings. The US is simply upset that it wasn't able to get a "two birds with one stone" with the elimination of the Assad regime and the dismantling of ISIS/ISIL, and they are refusing to change their tone because it would look like an admission of complicity or ineptitude.
Russia is doing the same as what  US and other western allies have been doing and now that the table is turning everyone of the western politicians are talking. This conflict wouldn't have reach here if they allow Assad to be part of the national reconciliation they have tried to negotiate with the help of different UN envoys and it failed always because and they back and support does opposition whom they want to replace Assad for their political interest. If at Russia and China didn't veto the intervention plan they wanted some years ago, the West would have destroyed Syria with bombs and just like what they did to Libya and Iraq. This is not a civil war but a war between the super countries all fighting for their interest in Syria and forget about the citizen who are suffering. It is really sad to see children dieing of a crime they never commit. It is really sad to see houses and properties of people which they struggle for years been destroy in one day. Terrorists have been taking advantage of the war to terrorise the citizens. Syrian opposition and Syrian government must use the negotiating table to solve this crisis. Is that the only solution? And after that the world can unite to eradicate terrorism before this cancer spreads more./.
Chia sẻ bài viết ^^
Other post

All comments [ 10 ]

John Smith 21/12/15 14:36

The Peace of Westphalia was a series of treaties among the European states that ended the Thirty Years’ War, with its enormous carnage, and established the principle of national sovereignty—that a nation is sovereign over its population.

Gentle Moon 21/12/15 14:37

This meant that a Protestant nation, for example, had no right to make war against a Catholic nation merely because the Protestant nation very much wanted the citizens of the Catholic nation to become Protestants.

LawrenceSamuels 21/12/15 14:38

Our intervention flouted the Peace of Westphalia, though again I don’t recall the Peace having been mentioned.

Jane smartnic 21/12/15 14:39

which the President wants to bomb as punishment for the Syrian military’s use of poison gas against civilians believed to support the rebels in the civil war that has been raging for more than two years and that has caused some 100,000 deaths and a flood of refugees.

yobro yobro 21/12/15 14:40

Syria is a dictatorship, but it is not a threat to the United States.

Love Peace 21/12/15 14:42

Rather odd to not talk about how action without the UN is illegal, or that you seem to condone funding the borderline genocidal military

MaskOf Zero 21/12/15 14:43

I have to say in the Syria debate I have only heard mention of International Law rather than the Peace

Only Solidar 21/12/15 14:52

I am assuming that you are concentrating on interests rather than the legality of an action because there appear to be so many historical precedents that someone can always pick the one which can justify what they want to do.

Pack Cassiopian 21/12/15 14:53

The red line was crossed in Syria, but few people have yet to talk about the most likely and only real solution which is to break the nation into two parts.

Deck Hero14 21/12/15 14:54

A change in ruling factions is also not a viable solution in that it would probably unleash a wave of killings, and reprisals.

Your comments