United States Launches Airstrikes in Syria – Real Target Is Assad

Late Monday evening, September 22, the United States began the first of its airstrikes inside Syria.
Although details are still murky about where the attacks took place and what targets were actually hit, the Pentagon has acknowledged responsibility for the bombings.
According to USA Today, Rear Admiral John Kirby stated that ‘I can confirm that U. S. military and partner nation forces are undertaking military action against ISIL terrorists in Syria using a mix of fighter, bomber and Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles. Given that these operations are ongoing, we are not in a position to provide additional details at this time.’
USA Today reports that the strikes were carried out both by bomber jets and by ships firing cruise missiles. It is said that the strikes have hit about 20 ISIS targets, including what is being called ‘headquarters buildings’ for ‘militants who have based their movement in Syria.’
The attacks were not carried out with the coordination and cooperation of the Syrian government. Nor were they carried out with Syrian government permission.
While Syria has already stated that any airstrikes conducted over Syrian airspace would be considered an act of war and that Syria might very well shoot down any American planes conducting those strikes, it is as of yet unclear as to how the Syrian government will respond.
The United States has repeatedly stated that it refuses to coordinate any airstrikes with the Syrian government and responded with an Orwellian statement that it would oust Assad military if he dare defend himself against American attacks.
The attacks come after a decision made by the White House and approved by Congress on September 17, 2014, to arm and train the alleged ‘moderate’ Syrian rebels. The vote was 273-156 in favor of the $500 million plan. Of course, the bill in question was actually an amendment that was cynically attached to a bill designed to continue funding for the federal government in the short-term, ensuring maximum support from members of the House.

This post was published at The Daily Sheeple on September 23rd, 2014.

GAO audit confirms TSA shift to pre-crime profiling of all air travelers

A Congressional hearing last week on the so-called ‘Secure Flight’ system for ‘screening’ domestic air travelers confirmed that the TSA has completed a shift from blacklist and whitelist matching to a comprehensive real-time pre-crime profiling system that assigns each air traveler a ‘risk assessment’ score on the four-step scale we’ve previously described and which is illustrated above in the latest GAO report.
Redacted versions of three audit reports on Secure Flight by the Government Accountability Office (1, 2, 3) were made public in conjunction with GAO testimony at the hearing. According to one of those reports, ‘Secure Flight’ started out as a blacklist and whitelist matching system:
Since implementation began in January 2009, the Secure Flight system has identified high-risk passengers by matching SFPD [against the No Fly List and the Selectee List, subsets of the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), the U. S. government’s consolidated watchlist of known or suspected terrorists maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center, a multiagency organization administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)…. To carry out this matching, the Secure Flight system conducts automated matching of passenger and watchlist data to identify a pool of passengers who are potential matches to the No Fly and Selectee Lists. Next, the system compares all potential matches against the TSA Cleared List, a list of individuals who have applied to, and been cleared through, the DHS redress process.
But that’s not how it works any more. According to the same GAO report:

This post was published at Papers Please on September 22, 2014.

U.S. enters Syrian civil war without Congressional approval

Last night, at the sole discretion of President Barack Obama, the United States officially entered the Syrian civil war and launched attacks in that sovereign nation. The president had neither obtained authorization from the U. S. Congress, nor permission from the Syrian state’s current government.
The offensive, launched in secret on , included a mix of fighter jets and bomber aircraft, accompanied by a barrage of ship-launched Tomahawk missiles, confirmed Pentagon press secretary John Kirby.
Military commanders intended to strike as many as 20 targets in the operation, primarily belonging to the Islamic State group, or ‘ISIS.’ The U. S. began attacking that group on August 8th, 2014 – but in Iraq, not Syria.
While the U. S. Congress recently voted to provide armaments to Syrian rebels, it did not vote for direct military strikes. Nonetheless, President Obama acted without reservation and said he would not hesitate to commit more attacks in the future.

This post was published at Police State USA on September 23, 2014.

Obama Ignores Congress Again to Launch Syria Attack With No Legal Basis

President commits impeachable offense
President Barack Obama has once again flagrantly violated the U. S. constitution by launching air strikes on Syrian territory under the justification of an illegal framework and with no Congressional input whatsoever.
In a move that threatens to enflame the entire region, Washington launched a wave of Tomahawk cruise missile attacks against ISIS targets late last night. Early reports indicate that eight civilians, including three children, were killed during an aerial bombardment on the city of Raqqa.
Despite the administration enjoying widespread support for its military campaign against ISIS, with nearly two thirds of Americans advocating air strikes within Syrian territory, suspicions are rife that Washington will subsequently turn its weapons against the Assad regime, which it has been trying to overthrow for more than two years.
Whatever the necessity and justification of the campaign against ISIS, Obama’s decision to once again ignore Congress, just as he did before the ultimately disastrous attack on Libya, reinforces the precedent of the White House launching military action with absolutely no legal foundation whatsoever.
Shortly after reports of U. S. air strikes on Syria emerged, Congressman Justin Amash also summed up the feelings of some lawmakers to Congressional leaders’ failure to engage in a vigorous debate about the new conflict.

This post was published at Info Wars by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON | SEPTEMBER 23, 2014.

Gateway Policies: ISIS, Obama and US Financial Boots-on-the-Ground

President Obama’s neo-Cold War is not about ideology or respect for borders. It is about money and global power. The current battle over control of gateway nations – strategic locations in which private firms can establish the equivalent of financial boots-on-the-ground – is being waged in the Middle East and Ukraine under the auspices of freedom and western capitalism (er, ‘democracy’). In these global gateways, private banks can infiltrate resource-rich locales fortified by political will, public aid and military support to garner lucrative market advantages. ISIS poses a threat to global gateway control that transcends any human casualties. That’s why Congress decided to authorize funds to fight ISIS despite the risk.
The common thread of today’s global gateway nations appears to be oil. But even more valuable are the multitude of financing deals that would accompany building new pipelines, arming allies, and reconstructing civil-war-torn countries. Indeed, hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake in America’s wars of ‘principle.’
Middle-East Gateways: ISIS and Money
Obama’s recent public address on fighting ISIS had a dash of economy sprinkled in. For him, US economic policy is foreign policy. It is also a product of an American political-financial expansionary land-and-resource grab that has been going on for decades. Obama’s execution may be far less authoritative than President Eisenhower’s. But his neo-financial Cold War has similar elements to those initiated by Eisenhower and the American banking elite in the 1950s when they collaborated to project American power into more countries, using the military and a combination of public and private capital, as tools.
The second World Bank President and 1950s Chairman of Chase Bank, John McCloy, and ascending and later Chase Chairman David Rockefeller both had aspirations to financially penetrate the Middle East. So did other major bankers. The US government and its banks first focused on Beirut as a gateway to the Middle East. Eisenhower dispatched military personnel to Beirut in 1958 not because he cared about the Lebanese, but because of the attractiveness of the country’s potential as a gateway to the region. By the 1970s, oil and money relationships between Chase and Saudi Arabia and Egypt grew, as they did with Iran and the Shah. Rockefeller’s relationship with the Shah, who kept his family money with Chase, ignited the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979. Before that, the US government and its military contractors made billions of dollars from arms deals with Iran.
Citigroup opened its first Iraq branch in September 2013, ten years after George W. Bush began his Iraq War while facing a recessed American economy. A decade ago, the Bush administration selected JPM Chase to manage billions of dollars of financing for Iraq imports and exports. JPM Chase also opened a branch in Iraq last year to compete with Citigroup for current gains. Billions of dollars in new pipeline funding and other projects are now up for grabs in Iraq. If the US supports the Iraqi government (against ISIS), these banks, as well as oil and infrastructure-building companies are poised to get more of a chunk of that money.

This post was published at Nomi Prins on September 21, 2014.

ISIS: Bush Was Right

Finally, somebody commenting on the state of Iraq thinks George W. Bush got something right. Turns out it’s ISIS. In the new hour-long ISIS-produced film about how nice it is to die for ISIS – Flames of War: Fighting Has Just Begun – Bush is quoted: ‘You are with us or against us.’ Video shows him saying ‘Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.’ A graphic in the upper corner of the screen reads: ‘Bush spoke the truth, although he’s a liar.’
What truth does ISIS think Bush spoke? The Manichean truth that there are two groups of people on earth with nothing in common between them and a shared dedication to annihilate each other. Of course, the notion that they have nothing in common is delusional. They have almost everything in common: their belief in violence, their monotheism, their stupidity, their desire for a U. S. war in the Middle East.
‘In the face of the dark wave of the crusader force…’ begins the ISIS movie.
‘This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while,’ said Bush.
ISIS shows Obama as well as Bush and denounces both as liars, including rejecting Obama’s lie that he won’t send combat troops to Iraq. As even a number of U. S. Senators and Congress Members have pointed out, the 1600 troops he’s already sent are trained and equipped for nothing other than combat, and a pilot in a plane is engaged in combat.
But ISIS wants more. This film is not aimed at provoking the United States the way the beheading films were…

This post was published at Washingtons Blog on September 22, 2014.

Congress Votes for More War in the Middle East

Last week, the House and Senate voted to rubber stamp President Obama’s war plans for the Middle East. Both bodies, on a bipartisan basis, authorized the US to begin openly training and arming the rebels who have been fighting for three years to overthrow the Assad government in Syria. Although the Syrian government has also been fighting ISIS and related extremist groups for three years, the US refuses to speak to the Syrians and has warned Assad not to interfere with the coming US attack on sovereign Syrian territoryPresident Obama promised that airstrikes alone would ‘degrade and destroy’ ISIS, telling the US military in a speech last week that:’The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission… I will not commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq.’But of course any US troops sent into a war zone are ‘combat’ troops. And more are on their way. While the president was swearing that there would be no boots on the ground, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, was in open disagreement. General Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that US forces would need to embed with Iraqi or Kurdish troops in combat situations under certain circumstances.

This post was published at Ron Paul Institute on sunday september 21, 2014.

FBI: Bombing ISIS Will Only STRENGTHEN Them

By Bombing ISIS, We Are Only Feeding the ‘Parasite of War’ US airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq, far from ‘degrading’ the organization, are actually giving ISIS a huge shot in the arm, according to FBI Director James Comey, who testified today before Congress.
***
The US operation seems to be playing directly into ISIS’ hands in many ways, with President Obama’s high-profile speech last Wednesday, promising to escalate the war on ISIS into neighboring Syria, paying off for ISIS in recruitment as well.
And see this.
Reuters reports:
Islamic State has won new recruits in Syria since President Barack Obama signaled last week that air strikes against the group will be expanded from Iraq to its strongholds in northern and eastern Syria, a group monitoring the war said on Wednesday.

This post was published at Washingtons Blog on September 20, 2014.

Killed by Congressional Cowardice

We tend to think of war as resulting from an excess of aggression or disorderliness or rebellion. Western academics hunt in the genes of foreigners and study chimpanzees to find the root of the nastiness.
But one would be hard press to count the number of people who have lost their lives to an excess of cowardice in the halls of the United States Congress. ‘This chamber reeks of blood,’ said Senator George McGovern, who would have been shocked anew this week.
On Constitution Day, the House of Representatives – followed the next day by the Senate – decided to put off until after the next U. S. elections in November any possible consideration of the new U. S. war already underway in Iraq and Syria, but voted in the meantime to approve of shipping weapons over to Syria to fuel the violence.
Here’s a website that tells you how your Representative and Senators voted and lets you send them an appropriate message with one click.
Said Congressman Jim McDermott, who voted No: ‘This amendment, which is valid only through early December, serves as nothing more than a faux authorization designed to get Congress through the election season. Moreover, it addresses only one aspect of the strategy the President outlined last week. That is not a responsible way to conduct public policy.’

This post was published at Washingtons Blog on September 19, 2014.

Congress brings Atlas Shrugged to America with this new bill

September 15, 2014 Santiago, Chile
It was known as Directive 10-289, and it was the government’s last-ditch, desperate effort to control the collapsing economy.
The President, along with some of his senior advisors at the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources, all widely agreed that the only way out of the crisis was expand government power.
The directive was passed quickly, and among its key provisions:
‘Point One. All workers, wage earners and employees of any kind whatsoever shall henceforth be attached to their jobs and shall not leave nor be dismissed nor change employment. . .’
‘Point Two. All industrial, commercial, manufacturing and business establishments of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth remain in operation, and the owners of such establishments shall not quit nor leave nor retire, nor close, sell or transfer their business. . .’

This post was published at Sovereign Man on September 19, 2014.

ISIS Update, Ukraine Wants Weapons and Money, the Feds Zero Interest Rate Policy Continues

The following video was published by Greg Hunter on Sep 18, 2014
ISIS update, Ukraine wants weapons and money. Plus the Feds zero interest rate policy continues indefinitely. I truly don’t think a single general and many in Congress think President Obama’s plan to arm rebels and bomb in Iraq and Syria will work. Everybody says we will have to use ground troops if we are serious. We could have bombed ISIS months ago and didn’t, even though the Iraqi government was begging Obama to do so. It probably would have been much more effective back then. Why the delay? Why do we continue to let ISIS sell oil and make millions every day? Why don’t we sanction or bomb that? Both the House and the Senate agreed to arm the moderate rebels in Syria. Haven’t we already tried this?
The President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, is in Washington asking for money, and he’s getting it. The U. S. is chipping in more than $1 billion in various aid packages. The IMF is approving billions in future loans. Poroshenko also wants weapons and, so far, he’s not getting them, at least, that is the story coming out of the White House.
Finally, the Fed made a decision to continue the zero interest rate and easy money policies with no expiration date. If things were really recovering, wouldn’t the Fed be jacking up interest rates and trying to normalize? Of course, and that means the easy money policies are your tip-off that there is no real recovery.

IRS Thumbs Its Nose at Congress, Which Is Impotent

Congress is impotent. The IRS is revealing this as never before. It is saying, loud and clear, that Congress cannot do anything to Lois Lehrner or any other IRS employee. Sorry; no emails. They went bye-bye into cyberspace. There are no digits. There is no smoking gun.
But what about the NSA? Doesn’t the NSA track everything? Store everything?
The NSA shares nothing with Congress. But Congress still comes up with its $45 billion a year budget.
How do we know this? Snowden put it on his thumb drive. He made back-ups.
The IRS didn’t.
What can Congress do about Snowden? Nothing.
What does it do with the NSA? Funds it.
What does it do about the giggling IRS? Funds it.
We read this:

This post was published at Tea Party Economist on September 18, 2014.

“We Are About To Arm Some Rebels And Drone Some More Folks” – Obama Statement On Passage Of Syrian Strategy

Moments ago, the Senate passed a $1 trillion government-funding bill that according to the Hill also gave the president new authority to battle the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The legislation, which has now been approved by both chambers of Congress, now heads to the White House for Obama?s signature. While the stopgap bill will prevent a government shutdown on Oct. 1, the vote will be remembered for a controversial provision that allows Obama to start a new training program for rebel fighters in Syria. In other words, not only will Obama arm some folks, he will also drone some other folks, the same folks he was arming a year ago.

This post was published at Zero Hedge on 09/18/2014.

White House Explains Where Your $1.3 Billion Went In Ukraine

Just minutes after Poroshenko’s fearmongering speech to US Congress (and in the face of a collapsing Ukraine economy), The White House has released its “fact sheet” to explain exactly how committed (aside from the lethal aid demands – which may or may not be happening as we noted here) to supprting Ukraine the US taxpayer is… On top of guaranteeing $1 billion of Ukraine’s debt, a further $291 million in ‘assistance’ has been flooded in… here’s what for…
FACT SHEET: U. S. Support for Ukraine
The United States is firmly committed to supporting Ukraine as it works to establish security and stability, respond to humanitarian and reconstruction needs, conduct democratic elections and carry out constitutional reforms, restore its economy, and combat corruption. Along with our international partners, including the IMF, the United States is committed to supporting Ukraine’s reform agenda while also ensuring that Ukrainians are able to determine their future without intimidation or outside coercion.
In pursuit of these objectives, the U. S. government has provided approximately $291 million in assistance to Ukraine this year as well as a $1 billion loan guarantee. This includes thePresident’s announcement today of a new package of assistance totaling $53 million, of which:
More than $7 million will be directed to international relief organizations to provide humanitarian aid to those affected by the conflict in Ukraine’s east. $46 million in security assistance will support Ukraine’s military and border guards. This is in addition to the $70 million in security assistance we have previously announced. The President has also asked U. S. Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker to lead a U. S. Government delegation to Ukraine September 26-27 to meet with senior Ukrainian government and business leaders and discuss Ukrainian economic reform efforts and the steps that the government needs to take in the short- and medium-term to strengthen its business climate and build an economy that attracts private capital.
The U. S. government will continue to work with Congress to identify additional opportunities for U. S. assistance to Ukraine. For example, the Administration has requested from Congress an additional $45 million in FY 2015 as part of the President’s European Reassurance Initiative that would help build Ukraine’s capacity to provide for its own defense and increase interoperability with U. S. and Western forces.
Examples of U. S. assistance to Ukraine in response to the crisis include the following:

This post was published at Zero Hedge on 09/18/2014.

More Unlawful Presidential Killing

As the debate rages over whether the president needs congressional authorization for war prior to his deployment of the military to degrade or destroy ISIS, the terrorist organization that none of us had heard about until a few months ago, the nation has lost sight of the more fundamental issue of President Obama’s infidelity to the rule of law.
On the lawfulness of his proposed war, the president has painted himself into a corner. Last year, he quite properly recognized that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), a statute enacted by Congress in 2002 to permit President George W. Bush to use the military to track down, capture, degrade or kill all persons or organizations that planned the attacks of 9/11, cannot apply to organizations that did not exist at the time of 9/11, of which ISIS is one.
That leaves the president with two remaining alternatives. One is the War Powers Resolution (WPR), a statute enacted by Congress in 1973 to limit presidentially ordered military invasions absent congressional assent to 180 days or fewer. But the WPR is unconstitutional, as it consists of Congress giving away to the president express authority to declare war, which the Constitution delegates to Congress. The Supreme Court has prohibited such giveaways of core powers and responsibilities from one branch of the federal government to another.
Even if Obama decides to rely on the WPR, and expects that no federal judge will interfere with that decision, his military advisers have told him he cannot achieve his objective in 180 days. They also have told him he cannot achieve his objective by the use of air power alone.

This post was published at Lew Rockwell on September 18, 2014.

#DECLASSIFY: CAMPAIGN TO REVEAL THE 28 CENSORED PAGES OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT

Censored information implicates Saudi Arabia in 9/11 attacks
Even as Americans marked the 13th anniversary of 9/11 last week, the vast majority remain completely oblivious to the fact that the full story behind the attacks has not been told, with 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission report still remaining classified.
In an effort to lift the lid on the information contained in the censored pages, which almost certainly implicates Saudi Arabia in the September 11 attacks, Congressman Ron Paul has called on Americans to get behind a campaign to draw attention to U. S. Rep. Walter Jones’ House Resolution 428, which demands that the President order the 28 pages declassified in full.
Paul is urging supporters to upload videos to YouTube explaining why the 28 pages should be declassified, in addition to launching the campaign on Twitter under the hashtag #Declassify. Infowars is also throwing its support behind this cause under the hashtag #releasethe28pages.
In an interview with Ron Paul, Congressman Jones gave an insight into the kind of secrecy that surrounds the 28 pages and the security precautions that are taken when lawmakers, who are required to swear on oath not to release details, request to see the information.
‘You have to go down into a room that is guarded by uniformed officers, and then also you have an FBI person to sit there in the room,’ said Jones. ‘You can’t make any notes. The Bush people do not want it released. It’s not a national security issue. But it would be embarrassing to the previous administration if this information is opened for the public…. There will be no hope for America’s future if the American people don’t know the truth about a tragedy such as 9/11.’

This post was published at Info Wars by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON | SEPTEMBER 18, 2014.

If ISIS Were Really a Movie

ISIS has created a movie preview for the coming war, a war it eagerly wants Washington to take part in. The White House and Congress would like to oblige, as long as the movie can be a short one, on the model of Libya. Here’s the plot: Evil force arises out of nowhere; United States destroys it; credits roll. If Libya-The-Movie had begun with years of support for Gadaffi or ended with the disaster left behind, the critics would have hated it. Framing is everything.
Kathy Kelly published an article on Wednesday describing her visit some years back to a U. S. prison camp in Iraq where Awwad Ibrahim Ali al-Badri al-Samarrai spent four years under the name Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi before becoming the leader of ISIS.
Imagine a Hollywood-like movie that began in that camp. An opening scene might show Baghdadi and his fellow prisoners paraded naked in front of female soldiers and forced to say ‘I love George Bush’ before they could get their food rations. We’d see them sleeping on the ground in the cold, cursing their captors and swearing every last drop of energy and instant of remaining life to that highest of all Hollywood values: violent revenge.
Cut to the present and a scene in a small house in Iraq with 500-pound U. S. bombs exploding just outside. Baghdadi and his gang of loveable heroes look horrified, but – with a twinkle in his eye – Baghdadi gathers the others to him and begins to smile. Then he begins to laugh. His comrades look bewildered. Then they start to catch on. ‘You wanted this, didn’t you?’ exclaims Sexy Female Rebel. ‘This was your plan, wasn’t it!’

This post was published at Washingtons Blog on September 17, 2014.

Poroshenko in Washington: A Marriage Made in Heaven?

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s visit to Washington tomorrow (Thursdsay) is the consummation of a marriage made back in February, when the Obama administration ripped up a compromise agreement between elected president Yanukovich and the rebels who were seeking to overthrow him. Overnight, the US government endorsed the rebels’ seizure of power, and it has not wavered in its support of the coup leadership from that point. Poroshenko will arrive in town buoyed by Congressional passage of H. Res. 726, a resolution ‘Strongly supporting the right of the people of Ukraine to freely determine their future, including their country’s relationship with other nations and international organizations, without interference, intimidation, or coercion by other countries.’The lie is in the very title of the bill, however, as in supporting an anti-democratic coup against a legally elected government, the US has undermined, not supported, the right of the Ukrainian people to ‘freely determine their future… without interference…by other countries.’The Ukrainian people expressed their desires when they voted for Yanukovich. After the coup, the people in Crimea and the eastern part of the country also expressed their preferred ‘relationship with other nations’ when they voted to, respectively, join Russia and declare independence from the US-backed government in Kiev.

This post was published at Ron Paul Institute on September 17, 2014.

8 Reasons Why Congress Should Vote No on Training and Funding Syrian Rebels

Today Congress will vote on the McKeon Amendment, a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t heard of. But the consequences of the vote today are grave: funding Syrian “rebels” will precipitate a new and wider war in the Middle East. Here are eight reasons why Congress should vote NO on the McKeon Amendment:1. It is a waste of money. We’d be on the hook for a projected $21 billion price tag over three years. The Pentagon plans to train 5,000 rebels in the next year, which at $1 million for each soldier could cost up to $15 billion dollars over the three-year war. The nearly 2,000 U. S. troops in Iraq will cost $6 billion over three years. The last Iraq War added at least $5 trillion to the long-term deficit.2. There are no “moderates.”Historian Alastair Crooke, writing about the connection between Saudi Arabia and ISIS, recently described “moderate” insurgents in Syria as being “rarer than a mythical unicorn.” “Moderates” have a non-aggression pact with ISIS. “Moderates” captured an American journalist and sold him to ISIS, who beheaded him. Saudi Arabia, which, with Qatar funded the jihadists in Syria, is now offering to “train” the rebels. Congress is being asked to swallow this concoction: the sponsors of radical jihadists are going to train “moderate” jihadists.

This post was published at Ron Paul Institute on september 17, 2014.

TOP U.S. MILITARY OFFICIAL ADMITS: OUR ARAB ALLIES ARE FUNDING ISIS

“I know major Arab allies who fund them” During his testimony in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, America’s top military official General Martin E. Dempsey admitted that the United States’ Arab allies in the middle east are funding ISIS.

Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked by Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, ‘Do you know any major Arab ally that embraces ISIL?’
His response: ‘I know major Arab allies who fund them.’
‘Yeah, but do they embrace them?’ responded Graham. ‘They fund them because the Free Syrian Army couldn’t fight Assad. They were trying to beat Assad. I think they realized the folly of their ways.’
In reality, such ‘folly’ is set to continue after President Barack Obama announced a plan to arm and train Syrian rebels that is set to be given the green light by Congress before the end of this week, despite the fact that so-called ‘moderate’ rebels have defected to, fought alongside and given weapons to Islamic State militants.
As we have exhaustively documented, innumerable examples prove how Washington-backed FSA fighters and ISIS militants were moving closer even before the two groups signed a non-aggression pact last week.


This post was published at Info Wars by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON | SEPTEMBER 17, 2014.