How Britain Helped Create
ISIS
Britain is gripped by fear,
panic and anger, after being struck by three terror attacks in the space of
three months. Innocent men, women and children have been killed in the terror
rampage, filling many homes with tragedy and despair. Martial law has practically
been declared in many regions of the country, with troops now being a common
site on the streets of Royal Britannia. Many are looking for someone or
something to blame, as rage is increasingly triumphing over reason.
Lost in all this hysteria
however, there sits a glaring connection that needs to be illuminated: the
connection between these terror attacks and British foreign policy in Syria.
Although Jeremy Corbyn
has correctly highlighted the link between British wars in
Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and the growth of terrorism at home, there is a
still a conflict – arguably the most important in the rise of terrorism – that
no one dares speak about; namely, the war in Syria.
Sadly, most people in
Britain are still completely ignorant of the real truth of the Syrian war, and
the role that the British establishment has played in supporting an array of
terrorist groups, including ISIS. Even if we accept for a moment that all the
official stories of the last three terror attacks are 100% true (something I
don’t believe, see here for instance), a
significant portion of the blame should still be directed towards the British
establishment for the policies it has pursued overseas.
The Syrian proxy war has
provided fertile ground for the rise of ISIS and other extremist groups, with
ISIS claiming responsibility for the last three terror attacks in Britain;
namely, the London Bridge
attack, the Manchester
Arena attack and the Westminster attack. Britain
has been part of a nefarious troika that have supported an array of terrorist
groups in Syria for years now, a fact that legendary journalist and documentary
filmmaker, John Pilger, highlighted in an interview at the end of 2015. In
response Afshin
Rattansi – the host of the RT show, Going Underground – asking “how are ISIS the progeny of
Washington, London and Paris?”, Pilger said:
“They are not only the
progeny, they are the fully grown-up, manic, adolescent creature belonging to
Paris, London and the United States. Without the support of these three
countries, without the arms that have been given to ISIS – either they have
been given directly to Jabhat al-Nusra and have gone to ISIS; or they have gone
the other way; or they have gone to the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia or in Qatar-
but the French, the British, the Americans and the Turks have all supplied
those that have kept ISIS going. You know, if David Cameron had won his Commons
vote a couple of years ago, ISIS would now be in charge in Syria… The Middle
East’s most multi-ethnic, multi-cultural state, would be finished, and these
fanatics would be in charge, and that would-be thanks entirely to Western
actions.”
For years, the UK has been
pouring millions into the Syrian
opposition. In 2012, the British Foreign Secretary at the time, William Hague, admitted that Britain had been
helping the Syrian rebels in a “practical and non-lethal way,” and vowed to
increase British assistance. As the Independent
noted, this non-lethal aid consisted of Britain sending the Syrian opposition
£8m-worth of body armour, vehicles with ballistic protection, trucks, forklift
trucks, communications equipment, laptops, water purification kits and other
equipment needed to fight a war. In 2013, a report claimed that Britain was
involved in an operation with other European states and the US to send the
Syrian rebels 3,000 tons of
weapons, sent in 75 planeloads, from Zagreb to the rebels.
ISIS Has Always Been a Major
Part of the Syrian Opposition
But who exactly are these
Syrian rebels? According to a declassified US military
intelligence report – by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) –
from August 2012, the opposition largely consisted of terrorists and
extremists, including ISIS (emphasis added):
“The Salafists, the Muslim
Brotherhood and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq], are the major forces driving
the insurgency in Syria.” The report added that “AQI supported the Syrian
opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and through the media,”
and that “events are taking a clear sectarian direction.”
“The Islamic State (IS),
also known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL), is a
Salafi-Jihadist militant organization in Syria and Iraq… The group has its
origins in the early 2000s, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi began training extremist
militants. The group was a major participant in the Iraqi insurgency during the
American occupation, first under the name Jama’at al-Tawhid wa’al-Jihad and
then, after swearing fealty to Al Qaeda, as Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Facing backlash from the
community and increased pressure from U.S. and Iraqi forces, the group declined
until 2011, when it began to grow through its involvement in the Syrian
Civil War. In 2013, it changed its name to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Over the course of 2013 and 2014, ISIS quickly took over territory in Syria and
Iraq… On the ground, ISIS fought the Assad Regime and allied Shiite forces,
Syrian opposition groups, the Iraqi military and militias, and the Kurdish
peshmerga.”
So, according to US military
intelligence in August 2012, AQI – later to be known as ISIS – was a major part
of the Syrian opposition, and Britain was officially supporting the Syrian
opposition by means of non-lethal aid. According to some reports, Britain was
also directly arming the opposition, but we know for sure that Britain’s
partners in crime – France and the US – were certainly
arming the opposition directly, not to mention British allies in the Middle
East. Britain was also involved in training the Syrian rebels in
Jordan, with British intelligence teams on the ground, according to the
Guardian. If this is just what is admitted, imagine how many clandestine
operations Britain has been involved in but never have been officially
recognised.
It isn’t just US military
intelligence that has acknowledged that a large percentage of the Syrian rebels
are terrorists. Even the former Prime Minister of Britain, David Cameron,
who was always a strong proponent of forcing regime change in Syria, admitted in early 2016 that
many of the ‘moderate’ rebels actually belonged to “relatively hardline
Islamist groups” (i.e. terrorist groups):
“But if you’re arguing: are
all these people impeccable democrats, who would share the view of democracy
that you and I have: [then] no. Some of them do belong to Islamist groups,
and some of them belong to relatively hardline Islamist groups.”
Britain’s collusion with
terrorist forces in Syria was further highlighted during a court case at the
Old Bailey in 2015. Bherlin Gildo, a Swedish national, was accused of fighting
for Syrian militant groups – including Jabhat al-Nusra (or al-Qaeda in Syria),
who have now changed their name multiple times – but the case was quickly
dropped after his lawyer’s argued that British
intelligence was involved in arming and providing
non-lethal aid to the very same terrorist groups he was allegedly fighting for.
Britain’s Long-held Desire
to Force Regime Change in Syria
Britain has a long history
of wanting to force regime change in Syria, and install a regime that would be
subservient to the Anglo-American (and by extension, Israeli) establishment. In
1957, the British Prime Minister at the time, Harold MacMillan (no relation by
the way), approved a joint CIA-MI6 plan
to stage fake border incidents in order to provide a justification for an
invasion of Syria, and the assassination of prominent Syrian political figures.
Although this plan was never acted upon – mainly due to resistance from Syria’s
Arab neighbours – it illustrates how long Britain has had Syria in its sights.
In more modern times, there
is strong evidence to support the notion that Britain was one of the main
architects of the engineered Syrian ‘civil war’ that began in 2011. In an 2013
interview, the former French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Roland Dumas, stated that he was approached
in the UK “two years before the violence” erupted in Syria, to see if he would
like to participate in organizing “an invasion of rebels” into the country
(emphasis added):
‘’I’m going to tell you
something. I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other
business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were
preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain
was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I
was no longer minister for foreign affairs, if I would like to participate.
Naturally, I refused, I said I’m French, that doesn’t interest me…
This operation goes way
back. It was prepared, preconceived and planned… In the region, it is important
to know that this Syrian regime has a very anti-Israeli stance. Consequently,
everything that moves in the region – and I have this from the formerIsraeli
prime minister who told me: ‘we’ll try to get on with our neighbours, but
those who don’t agree with us, will be destroyed.’”
Interestingly, even the BBC admitted that there was a plan
circulating around the British establishment in 2012 to “train and equip a
100,000-strong Syrian rebel army” to fight against Bashar al-Assad. The BBC
tried to spin the story by saying the plan was deemed too risky by the Prime
Minister and ultimately rejected, but considering that is exactly what happened
(was happening, and is happening), albeit in conjunction with the US, France
and Britain’s Middle Eastern allies, it hardly seems the plan was rejected.
May Pushes for Internet
Regulation
In the wake of the most
recent (at the time of writing anyway) terrorist attack at London Bridge –
which, as always, was carried out by extremists who were known to the
authorities – the British Prime Minister has advocated
internet regulation. May said that the internet provides a “safe space”
for terrorist ideology to spread, and called for governments to “reach
international agreements” to regulate the internet:
“We cannot allow this
ideology the safe space it needs to breed; yet that is precisely what the
internet, and the big companies that provide internet-based services, provide.
We need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international
agreements that regulate cyberspace, to prevent the spread of extremist and
terrorism planning.”
The truth may never come to
light regarding these three terror attacks, but we know for sure that the
establishment will exploit these atrocities in order to further their agendas.
May’s call for internet regulation has been an objective of the British
establishmentfor years, with May’s proposal further proving that
the elite never let a crisis go to waste.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.