Dubai Chief Police: The Qatari King Is A “Dirty Pig” And “U.S. Lackey”, Arab Countries Are Sitting On A Ticking Bomb


Dubai Chief Police: The Qatari King Is A “Dirty Pig” And “U.S. Lackey”, Arab Countries Are Sitting On A Ticking Bomb

By Whatsupic

Dubai police chief Lieutenant General Dhahi Khalfan Tamim (Photo:Emirates)

Dubai’s long-serving head of general security, Lieutenant General Dhahi Khalfan , strongly criticized Qatari ruler labeling him as a “dirty pig” and “U.S. lackey” who promotes terrorism in the restive Middle-East region and jeopardizes the security of Dubai and other oil-rich Arab monarchies.

Lt Gen. Dhahi Khalfan who made the remarks on Friday in a press conference at Dubai Police Academy, accused Qatar’s Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad of exploiting political instability ensuing the anticipated death of Saudi Arabia’s late King Abdullah by funneling millions of dollars in secret contributions to the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.

Qataris badly seek to undermine the national security of United Arab Emirates (UAE) and other Arab states, i.e. Egypt. In fact what they do currently is to sow terrorism and if we don’t thwart their malicious agenda, we might all plunge into abyss of anarchy and total destruction,” quoted Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) Khalfan as saying.

On the anniversary of the Egyptian revolution, they [Qatari regime] have recently re-launched Al Jazeera Online, Lt Gen. Khalfan added, a seditious news channel covered with the veneer of democratic goals and set to spark bloody ethnic and religious riots in Egypt and elsewhere, violating their previous commitments according to Riyadh agreement.

“…This incompetent lad [Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad] has become a plaything in the hands of notorious Yusuf al-Qaradawi—the Egyptian chairman of the so-called International Union of Muslim Scholars and infamous for his support for radical Islamist groups in Egypt and Syria— and I do believe that all Arab countries are sitting on a ticking bomb susceptible to explode at any moment,” Khalfan added.

 Lt Gen. Khalfan is considered the unofficial spokesman for Emirati government and a major critic of Qatar’s unwavering support of the Muslim Brotherhood. In April 2014, stated that “Qatar should not be ‘a safe haven’ to the so-called ‘Muslim’ Brotherhood”.

THE JOKE OF THE YEAR: Press Laughs After U.S. Spokeswoman Claims We Do Not Support Coups


THE JOKE OF THE YEAR: Press Laughs After U.S. Spokeswoman Claims We Do Not Support Coups

So as you can see the United States is famous for backing coups or changing sovereign governments when ever it suits their purposes….. by denying it, it only makes you laugh so hard that tears come to your face, with their audacity that reporters and anonymous readers would believe such a blatant lie. Here is a small preview of the above table which I got it from this article and I suggest you read the whole article maybe some people will wake up from their lethargic sleep and do something

COMMON THEMES

Some common themes can be seen in many of these U.S. military interventions.

First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian “collateral damage.” War planners made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel zones of control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure, such as train lines, water plants, agricultural factories, medicine supplies, etc. The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side. Yet when the inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as “accidental” or “unavoidable.”

Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of “freedom” and “democracy,” nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites. Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending “freedom” but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments). In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship–such as in Grenada or Panama–they did so in a way that prevented the country’s people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic government more to their liking.

Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as “terrorism,” “atrocities against civilians,” or “ethnic cleansing,” but minimized or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies. If a country has the right to “end” a state that trains or harbors terrorists, would Cuba or Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists? Washington’s double standard maintains that an U.S. ally’s action by definition “defensive,” but that an enemy’s retaliation is by definition “offensive.”

Fourth, the U.S. often portrays itself as a neutral peacekeeper, with nothing but the purest humanitarian motives. After deploying forces in a country, however, it quickly divides the country or region into “friends” and “foes,” and takes one side against another. This strategy tends to enflame rather than dampen a war or civil conflict, as shown in the cases of Somalia and Bosnia, and deepens resentment of the U.S. role.

Fifth, U.S. military intervention is often counterproductive even if one accepts U.S. goals and rationales. Rather than solving the root political or economic roots of the conflict, it tends to polarize factions and further destabilize the country. The same countries tend to reappear again and again on the list of 20th century interventions.

Sixth, U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power. Take the list of current regimes most singled out for U.S. attack, and put it alongside of the list of regimes that have had the longest hold on power, and you will find they have the same names. Qaddafi, Castro, Saddam, Kim, and others may have faced greater internal criticism if they could not portray themselves as Davids standing up to the American Goliath, and (accurately) blaming many of their countries’ internal problems on U.S. economic sanctions.

One of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century was that “people like us” could not commit atrocities against civilians.

  • German and Japanese citizens believed it, but their militaries slaughtered millions of people.

  • British and French citizens believed it, but their militaries fought brutal colonial wars in Africa and Asia.

  • Russian citizens believed it, but their armies murdered civilians in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and elsewhere.

  • Israeli citizens believed it, but their army mowed down Palestinians and Lebanese.

  • Arabs believed it, but suicide bombers and hijackers targeted U.S. and Israeli civilians.

  • U.S. citizens believed it, but their military killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere.

Every country, every ethnicity, every religion, contains within it the capability for extreme violence. Every group contains a faction that is intolerant of other groups, and actively seeks to exclude or even kill them. War fever tends to encourage the intolerant faction, but the faction only succeeds in its goals if the rest of the group acquiesces or remains silent. The attacks of September 11 were not only a test for U.S. citizens attitudes’ toward minority ethnic/racial groups in their own country, but a test for our relationship with the rest of the world. We must begin not by lashing out at civilians in Muslim countries, but by taking responsibility for our own history and our own actions, and how they have fed the cycle of violence.

and here is the rest of the article with the joke that America is not involved in any coups:

Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro has publicly accused the United States of trying to foment a coup in Venezuela. The accusations come as the Obama Administration has bizarrely labeled Venezuela a national security threat to the United States despite that obviously not being true.Maduro’s accusation stems not just from being labeled a national security threat but from a plot Venezuelan security services uncovered which was publicly detailed by Maduro on Venezuelan TV.

According to Maduro the plot involved Carlos Manuel Osuna Saraco who operates out of New York and Miami, allegedly with the help of the US government. There is audio of Osuna dictating a statement rebel leaders should read after the coup.

If the plot is true it will be the second attempt by the US to foment a coup in Venezuela this century. The first being an amazingly blatant attempt in 2002 against President Hugo Chavez which the White House itself publicly supported before the coup was reversed and Chavez was returned to power.

Which brings us to the laughing stock State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki became yesterday when she claimed [VIDEO] in response to Maduro’s accusations:

As a matter of long standing policy the United States does not support transitions by non-constitutional means. Political transitions must be democratic, constitutional, peaceful, and legal.

We’ve seen many times that the Venezuelan government tries to distract from its own actions by blaming the United States or other members of the international community for events inside Venezuela. These efforts reflect a lack of seriousness on the part of the Venezuelan government to deal with the grave situation it faces.

The Associated Press reporter, Matt Lee, immediately jumped in with quite reasonable incredulity saying “I’m sorry. Whoah, whoah, whoah. The US has a long-standing practice of not promoting [coups] – how long-standing would you say?” Lee continued audibly scoffing and laughing “In particular in South and Latin America that is not a long-standing policy.”

ISIS: Saudi-Qatari-Funded Wahhabi Terrorists Worldwide


ISIS: Saudi-Qatari-Funded Wahhabi Terrorists Worldwide

by Ramtanu Maitra

The sudden emergence of another organized militant Islamist-terrorist group, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), aka the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or simply IS, along the Iraqi-Syria borders, was not really “sudden” at all. A series of West-organized military actions, particularly the Iraq invasion of 2003, invasion of Libya in 2011, and arming and facilitating the passage of Islamists and terrorists, in the garb of freedom fighters, to Syria to dismantle the Assad regime, has served to bring together thousands of hard-core Islamic terrorists, from as many as 50 countries, who have for years been funded and indoctrinated by the Saudis, Qataris, and Kuwaitis, with the “kill them all” Wahhabi-Salafi vision of Islam, to establish what ISIS calls the Islamic State.

That state currently encompasses a swath of land stretching from the outskirts of Baghdad in the east, to the outskirts of Aleppo in Syria, bordering Lebanon and Turkey, in the west. Estimates of the number of fighters that might be affiliated with ISIS vary from more than 10,000, to as many as 17,000.

While many policy errors have contributed to creating this horror, there is one center of evil with the intention of spreading such brutal sectarian warfare, which destroys civilization and nation-states alike. This center is in London, often dubbed “Londonistan,” for its role as a center for incubating international terrorists. As we review the history of the creation of ISIS below, keep in mind the reality that we are dealing here with a London imperial project being carried out through Saudi Arabia, other Gulf States, and sundry British tools.

Setting Up Sectarian War

Although this large group of Wahhabi-Salafi terrorists in Iraq and Syria, who are killing Shi’as, and grabbing large of tracts of land for setting up a Wahhabi-Salafi Caliphate, has been much better organized and trained over the decades, it is not altogether different from the London-organized, Saudi-funded, and Pakistan-trained mujahideen in the 1980s, who showed up in Afghanistan to drive out the invading Soviet military. While the objective of the mujahideen brought in by Western powers was to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and then become terrorists-for-hire, ISIS is busy setting up a Caliphate in Southwest Asia.

It is perhaps because of this distinction that the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, told reporters on Aug. 24, on his way to Afghanistan, that he believes ISIS is more of a regional threat, and is not currently plotting attacks against the U.S. or Europe. He also pointed out that there is no indication, as of now, that ISIS militants are engaged in “active plotting against the homeland, so it’s different than that which we see in Yemen.” In Yemen, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has attempted attacks against Western countries.

There is no doubt that the threat that ISIS poses, as observed by General Dempsey, is a regional threat, and is primarily directed against Iran, Iran’s allies, and Shi’as in general. But it also poses a serious threat to all Arab monarchies and countries such as Lebanon.

The objective of ISIS became evident from its actions in Iraq and Syria. It is clear that the staunchest promoters of anti-Shi’a ideology, which is aimed at undermining Shiite Iran, are the Saudi monarchy, the Qatari monarchy under the al-Thanis, and the Kuwaiti monarchy under the al-Sabahs. These monarchies are exporters of the Salafi-Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam, which does not accept Shi’as as Muslims, and considers them to be heretics who should be annihilated in order to purify Islam.

Saudi Fears and Coverups

Nonetheless, the rise of the ISIS and its military prowess, seen in its securing a large tract of land not too-distant from the Saudi Arabian borders, has evoked an existential fear in the House of Saud. In addition, the presence of thousands of Western jihadi fighters who could raise hell upon their return to their home countries, has also made the Americans, the British, the French, and some other European governments—friends of the Saudi-Qatari-Kuwaiti axis—a bit uneasy. In order to assuage their Western friends’ fears, the Saudis have begun a propaganda campaign to convince others that they do not fund ISIS.

The West, with its vested interest in Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Gulf nations, has continued to defend Saudi Arabia; U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry went on record praising the Saudi Kingdom for donating $100 million to the UN Counter-Terrorism Centre. Riyadh is also spewing out the lie that the ISIS militants are not adherents to Wahhabism. In a statement to the Aug. 23 London-based Saudi news daily Asharq al-Awsat, a spokesperson for the Royal Embassy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in London said:

“Saudi Arabia wants the defeat and destruction of ISIS and other terrorist networks. Terrorist networks are as abhorrent to the government and people of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as they are to the governments and peoples of the rest of the world…. There have been suggestions that ISIS followers are members of some sort of Wahhabi absolutist sect. Indeed, certain UK media outlets often refer to Muslims within Saudi Arabia as Wahhabists. The unsubstantiated use of this invented connotation must end because it is untrue. Wahhabism is not a sect of Islam.” ****(But it is a sect and a very bad one at that)

“Muhammad [Ibn] Abd Al-Wahhab was a scholar and jurist of the 18th century who insisted on the adherence to Qur’anic values and the teachings of the word of God as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad,” the statement added. The Saudi spokesperson criticized Western media attempts to draw comparisons between Wahhabism and extremist ideology. ****(Wahhab was not a scholar but a shrewd man who knew how to manipulate the Quran and everything in Islam, the teachings of the Prophet have nothing in common with the teachings of the screwed Wahhab)

But some Western news media are not buying these denials by Riyadh and Washington about the Saudi-Qatari-Kuwaiti connections to ISIS. The British weekly The Spectator, on Aug. 21, alluded to the common ideology of the Saudi and ISIS Wahhabists: “Saudi Arabia is a close ally of Britain and a keen customer of our killing machines, and like most of the Arab states is hostile to lunatic elements like ISIS and Hamas. Yet they are part of the problem; like many Islamists, including those in Britain, the Saudis are happy to condemn ISIS in what they do but not their basic ideology, largely because it mirrors their own.”

The article pointed out that the Saudi hostility to ISIS could even be described in Freudian terms as the narcissism of small differences. ISIS is dangerous to them because for those raised in the Saudi version of Islam, the Islamic State’s even more extreme interpretation is not a huge leap.”

Wahhabi ‘Peaceniks’ of Yesteryear and Today’s ISIS

In 1744, Muhammad ibn Saud and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab swore a traditional Muslim oath, in which they promised to work together to establish a state-run according to Islamic principles. Until that time, the al-Saud family had been accepted as conventional tribal leaders whose rule was based on longstanding, but vaguely defined, authority. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab labeled all those who disagreed with him heretics and apostates, which, in his eyes, justified the use of force in imposing both his beliefs and his political authority over neighboring tribes. This in turn led him to declare holy war (jihad) on other Muslims (neighboring Arab tribes), an act which would otherwise have been legally impossible under the rules of jihad.

In 1802, the Wahhabis captured Karbala in Iraq, and destroyed the tomb of the Shi’ite Imam Husayn. In 1803, the Wahhabis captured the holy city of Mecca. The Ottoman Turks became alarmed, and in 1811, dispatched Muhammad Ali, the Ottoman ruler of Egypt, to challenge the Wahhabis. He succeeded in re-imposing Ottoman sovereignty in 1813. Nearly a century later, in 1901, with Wahhabi help, Saudi emir Abd al-Aziz al-Saud recaptured Riyadh. Al-Saud’s sovereignty over the Arabian peninsula grew steadily until 1924, when his dominance became secure. At that point, the Wahhabis went on a rampage throughout the peninsula, smashing the tombs of Muslim saints and imams, including the tomb of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima. Saudi Arabia was officially constituted as a kingdom in 1932.[1]

In Newsweek July 8, Lucy Westcott wrote, “The Islamist militant group ISIS has been destroying Iraq’s Shiite mosques and religious shrines as it continues to put pressure on the country and further its extreme agenda. The AFP reported that four shrines that commemorated Sunni Arab or Sufi figures have been destroyed, while six Shiite mosques were demolished. The destruction seems to have been limited to Iraq’s northern Nineveh province, including militant-held Mosul. One local resident told Al-Arabiya that members of the group had also occupied the Chaldean cathedral and the Syrian Orthodox cathedral, both in Mosul, removing their crosses and replacing them with the black flag of the Islamic State.”

There is another hallmark that ties Wahhabism with ISIS like an umbilical cord. Human Rights Watch reported recently that Saudi Arabia has beheaded 19 people since the beginning of August. Some confessions may have been gained under torture, and one poor defendant was found guilty of sorcery. Beheading of Kafirs (in Arabic, a slur to describe non-believers) is also the high-profile act of both ISIS and al-Qaeda under Sheikh Osama bin Laden, another group that was a beneficiary of Saudi money and wide-ranging Gulf support.

ISIS beheaded the American journalist James Foley recently in Iraq; while another American journalist, Daniel Pearl, was beheaded in 2002 in Pakistan. In both cases, videos of the beheadings were widely circulated to rev up emotions among the Wahhabis.

The Financing of ISIS

In 2011, in Syria, when President Obama, Prime Minister David Cameron, and President François Hollande joined forces to remove Syria’s elected President Bashir al-Assad from power, and thus deal a body blow to the Russians and the Iranians, who acknowledge Assad’s legitimacy, not-so-militant groups within were bolstered by attaching them to well-trained Salafi-Wahhabi terrorists from a number of countries. While the Western countries were quite generous with arms, and worked with the neighboring countries to facilitate entry of arms into Syria, the bulk of the money came from the Salafi-Wahhabi bastions of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait.

Despite denials issued from Riyadh and Doha to quiet gullible Westerners, the funding of various Sunni groups seeking to establish Salafism and Wahhabism in a number of countries has long been well-documented. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), for example, who is keen to see Assad, and the Russian influence over Syria, vanish altogether, praised the Saudis and Qataris for financial help lent to the Syrian “rebels,” in a discussion on CNN, in January 2014,

“Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar, and for our Qatari friends,” the Senator repeated at the Munich Security Conference in late January. McCain praised Prince Bandar bin Sultan, head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services and a former ambassador to the United States, for supporting forces fighting Assad in Syria. McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) had previously met with Bandar to encourage the Saudis to arm Syrian rebel forces.[2]

But McCain was a bit off the mark. At the time he was bloviating on CNN, the “rebel” power in Syria was already firmly in the hands of ISIS—now an enemy of the U.S. Indeed, in Syria, where the moderate Friends of Syria (those who, according to what the White House conveyed to the American people in 2011-13, were the recipient of arms thanks to American and other Western largesse), Jabhat al-Nusra (a faction of al-Qaeda), and ISIS worked together in the early stages of the West-orchestrated and Saudi-Qatari-Kuwaiti-funded anti-Assad militancy. These groups used to carry their flags together during militant operations against Damascus; but that changed, and the Salafi-Wahhabis, having seized arms and ammunition from their earlier collaborators, became the powerhouse.

Now, it is evident that ISIS has enough killing power to loot and extort funds to sustain itself, and even grow.

How Saudi Money Created Foreign Wahhabi Terrorists

In 2010, Britain’s news daily The Guardian citing Wikileaks, Dec. 5, 2010, quoted U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying that Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT)—but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money. Both the Afghan Taliban and the LeT espouse the Wahhabi version of orthodox Islam. “More needs to be done,” wrote The Guaridan, “since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups, says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

“Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide,” she said.

Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. The cables highlight an often ignored factor in the Pakistani and Afghan conflicts: that the violence is partly bankrolled by rich, conservative donors across the Arabian Sea whose governments do little to stop them. The problem is particularly acute in Saudi Arabia, where militants soliciting funds slip into the country disguised as holy pilgrims, set up front companies to launder funds, and receive money from government-sanctioned charities.

In other words, a small fraction of the Saudi money may have gone directly to ISIS, but it is definitely Saudi money that armed and trained terrorists in Russia’s Chechnya, Dagestan, North Ossetia, Ingushetia; in Pakistan; along the Afghanistan-Pakistan borders; in the Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan belt in Central Asia and also in Europe, particularly in Britain’s Londonistan. These militants have come in droves to the Syrian theater with their expertise to boost ISIS’s killing power.

In short, the Saudis have shipped money, sermons, and volunteers to Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Russia’s North Caucasus, just as they’re doing now in Syria. In Chechnya, Saudis such as Ibn al-Khattab, Abu al-Walid, and Muhannad (all noms de guerre) indoctrinated, armed, and trained militants who mired the Chechens in an endless war that killed some 160,000 people, while forcing Chechen women into Saudi-style isolation, and throwing Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, and North Ossetia into turmoil. Many of these jihadis are now on full display in the Syria-Iraq theater on behalf of ISIS.

In Afghanistan, Saudi money, and the Pakistani military, backed by Saudi money and support, have created a relatively small, but hardcore, Wahhabi capability in a number of provinces. Although these Afghan Taliban were not notably visible in either Syria or Iraq, they have helped facilitate movement of Saudi-funded Wahhabi terrorists coming down from the north to participate in the Caliphate-formation war in Iraq and Syria.

In Pakistan, myriad Saudi-financed Wahhabi and anti-Shi’a terrorists are growing in strength, and trying establish inroads into the Pakistani military; while in Afghanistan, the Saudi- and opium-funded Taliban, spewing Wahhabi venom, are trying to seize power again. In addition, Saudi money is also being distributed to build bases in several nations for recruitment and training of jihadis for future operations. It is evident that such a widespread operation cannot be carried out in stealth for years; it is therefore fair to assume that such base-building is done in collaboration with the targeted nation’s intelligence community. These recruits remain available for use by the mother-nation. This became visible when the Libyan Islamic Fighters Group (LIFG) was used to dismantle the Libyan state and kill Colonel Qaddafi. Pakistan and Britain are two important centers where the Saudis operate hand-in-glove with those nations’ intelligence apparatus.

Britain in the Spotlight

Take, for instance, the recent beheading of the American photo-journalist James Foley by a British jihadi working with ISIS. Whether the British jihadi actually carried out the execution, or not, it was evident that ISIS was keen to project its strength, boasting that it has muscle in developed countries, such as Britain. And, indeed, it has.

The identified British jihadi was a product of the East London Mosque, situated at the heart of Londonistan, in the borough of Tower Hamlets in East London. Londonistan is a world unto itself, where British intelligence recruits and trains Saudi-funded radical and criminal Sunni Muslims to kill and assassinate, and then deploys them wherever needed to serve the “Empire’s interest.”

Tower Hamlets is where the Shi’a-hating radical Saudi cleric and head Imam of Mecca, Sheikh Adel al-Kalbani (who last year was refused entry into Britain) went to meet local council leaders for a “private meeting” in 2008. He was the guest of the Mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman, a fanatic Islamist who heads the Saudi-funded Jamaat-e-Islami in Britain. According to a Bangladeshi journalist, Tower Hamlets has been converted into the “Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets” under the mayor. That statement was right on the mark.

On Aug. 9, The Guardian reported that some 20 Asian youths had gathered around the Tower Hamlets gates, where a black flag, resembling that of ISIS, was hoisted. The flag was subsequently taken down by a Catholic nun.

Tower Hamlets is one of many centers where the Saudis breed their Wahhabi recruits. In 2013, when Sheikh al-Kalbani was denied entry to the U.K., followers of radical hate preacher Anjem Choudary, spokesman for the Islamist group Islam4UK, led a demonstration in London in May against Shi’a Muslims, three years after Islam4UK was officially proscribed, on Jan. 14 2010, under the U.K.’s counter-terrorism laws. In other words, the proscription of Islam4UK is a paper job to cover up that group’s activities.

It is also evident that the Saudi funding for Wahhabi-indoctrinated jihadi fighters has not gone to waste. Among the ISIS foreign fighters, the Londonistan-created jihadists are the largest and most dominant group. The Telegraph, in an Aug. 21 article, “More British Muslims fight in Syria than in U.K. Armed Forces,” cited Khalid Mahmood, the Member of Parliament from Birmingham, another recruiting and training center of Londonistan, saying that “1,500 British Muslims have gone to wage jihad since 2011, as opposed to the 400-500 the government estimates and the 650 serving in the British armed forces.”

“The Saudi Arabian princes, the people that we’re doing business with every day, because of the petro-dollar arrangement we have with them, they’re still funding ISIS. Their money is going directly to ISIS as we speak,” Mr. Papantonio said. “So, (ISIS has) this huge armament stash that (the U.S.) gave them, they have this propaganda machine that we gave them, and they have money coming from the Saudi Arabians.”

The “back-story” of U.S. involvement in the very creation of ISIS is undeniable, Mr. Papantonio said. “In the 1980s—(Pres. Ronald) Reagan and (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld—the U.S. funded anti-Soviet rebels and provided huge weapons supply to (Osama) bin Laden and Al Qaeda,” when they were fighting America’s “Cold War” enemy the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

“Al Qaeda, then after that, if you remember the history, merged with ISIS, and then together, the next step was ISIS and Al Qaeda, pushed to overthrow (Col. Muammar) Gadhafi in Libya and to reassert this strong “Islamic” regime. And for them doing that, the U.S. provided more money, more arms, more air strikes and more moral support for ISIS.

reagan_rumsfeld_09-16-2014.jpg

President Ronald Reagan, with his Middle East envoy, Donald Rumsfeld standng by, right, defends the use of U.S. troops in Grenada during a Nov. 3,1983 press briefing at the White House.

“Then the Al Qaeda-ISIS group, recovered huge amounts of U.S. weapons that we left behind in Iraq. I mean tons and tons of weapons. It’s disgusting when you start seeing what they drove away with and carried away,” Mr. Papantonio continued.

But Mr. Obama’s international problems are even deeper than just ISIS. He is facing a “triple-headed monster” in international affairs, according to Dr. Gerald Horne, who holds the John J. and Rebecca Moores Chair of History and African American studies at the University of Houston. “The way it’s been described is the so-called Islamic State, on the Syria-Iraqi border, the Ukraine-Russia-crisis that’s exploding as we speak, and the alleged threat from China, where the United States has been buzzing the coast of China in recent days, leading to confrontations between the air forces of both nations, with—according to press reports—the planes coming within 30 feet of each other, which is quite dangerous,”

Kuwaiti Researcher Abdulazziz Al-Qattan: ISIS Is The Product Of Islamic Heritage


Kuwaiti Researcher Abdulazziz Al-Qattan: ISIS Is The Product Of Islamic Heritage

The following report is from MEMRI’s Counter-Radicalization Initiative.

In a recent TV show, Kuwaiti researcher Abdulazziz Al-Qattan said that the ISIS ideology existed long before the emergence of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and that it was a product of Islamic heritage. “All the books of Islamic heritage, without exception… have enough ISIS ideology to turn your hair white,” said Al-Qattan, speaking on Al-Mayadeen TV on March 3, 2015.

Following are excerpts:

Click here to view this clip on MEMRI TV

4821MTV A.jpg

Abdulaziz Al-Qattan: “ISIS did not come out of nowhere. It’s not an aberration. By no means. ISIS adopts the Salafi-Wahhabi ideology of Al-Qaeda. If you look at Durur Al-Saniyah by Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, you will see that ISIS is implementing the ideas of that book to the letter. They are doing it step by step, word by word.

[…]

4821MTV B.jpg

“The problem of us Arabs is that we are not being honest with ourselves. We do not acknowledge our mistakes. We refuse to break away from that heritage. Our Islamic heritage is a minefield of these deviant ideas. Unfortunately, even some contemporary muftis, sheiks, and Islamic scholars subscribe to this reactionary ideology and to this backwardness. To this day, some of them consider photography to be prohibited polytheism, and view statuses as idols that are worshiped instead of Allah.

4821MTV C.jpg

Even in the days of the Islamic conquests, ‘Amr Ibn Al-‘As did not destroy the Sphinx and did not shatter statues in Egypt. I cannot imagine Islam, or any civilization, without art. I cannot imagine the beauty of Islam without art. Art is sublime. Art means progress. Art means civilization. Can you possibly imagine humanity without art? Inconceivable! Inconceivable!

[…]

4821MTV D.jpg

“The ISIS [ideology] existed even before ISIS and Al-Qaeda emerged, but we turned a blind eye, and some Arab governments still prefer not to face the plain truth. All the books of Islamic heritage, without exception – from all Islamic sects and denominations – have enough ISIS ideology to turn your hair white. Therefore, what we need to do is sift through Islamic heritage. We must go back to the book of Allah, for it gives guidance to humanity. Islam does not, under any circumstances, run counter to human nature. Allah created Man free and gave him freedom of thought, but the problem is that the Muslims have begun to worship people. We have begun to worship our heritage. We have begun to worship books.

[…]

“I say “Islamic heritage,” but that is not what it is. It is the heritage of the jurisprudents, not of the Prophet Muhammad. The books of Islamic heritage – Al-Bukhari and Muslim hadith collections, and the other canonical hadith books, as well as the Kitab Al-Kafi and all the other books of the Shiites… All these books need to be sifted through by real institutions. “These stories should be sifted through in order to filter out all their blemishes. Politics played a role in the evolvement of this heritage. The Islamic scholars of the Sultan’s court played a role in this. The hadith narrators were not infallible. Some of them were liars, cheats, and so on.”

[…]

View The Clip

Isis vs Islamic State or Daesh: What do the different names mean – and where they come from?


Isis vs Islamic State or Daesh: What do the different names mean – and where they come from?

 

The F.UK.US. corporate creation groups have only this terrorist flag of the Al-Qaeda/Nusra/Sharia/Isis/Daesh/ & other terrorist names use this flag. No one can claim its their own and they have only one thing in common… THAT IS TO DESTROY ALL ARAB NATIONS AND THE ISLAM.

 

The F.UK.US. corporate creation groups have only ONE terrorist flag of the Al-Qaeda/Nusra/Sharia/Isis/Daesh/ & other terrorist names use this flag. No one can claim its their own and they have only one thing in common… THAT IS TO DESTROY ALL ARAB NATIONS AND THE ISLAM. They are dressed  like a look alike Ninja and apparently they are insulting the Ninjas of  Japan, as the Japanese Ninjas had honor these trash have no honor, once they are caught they cry like little Rats begging for their lives and immediately giving up the names of their comrades. That’s how honorable they are…

If it were up to the terrorists themselves, the world would be calling them the “Islamic State” in recognition of the caliphate they have declared.

The rebrand launched in June year has spread, despite pleas from leading Muslims and other groups not to legitimise their status.

The British and US Governments are among those using the acronym Isil, while the name Isis is more commonly seen.  The four competing names are only a handful of those used by Isis, which emerged in 1999 when it was established by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant who allegedly ran a terror training camp and orchestrated bombings and beheadings in Iraq.

 

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has appointed himself caliph of the self-proclaimed Islamic State

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has appointed himself caliph of the self-proclaimed “Islamic State”

 

His group was initially known as Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, before changing to the simpler al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) after pledging allegiance to Osama bin Laden’s network in October 2004.

Since then, the group has operated under numerous guises until its current leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declared it the Islamic State in Iraq (Isi) in 2006, adding the “and al-Sham” to make “Isis” in 2013.

So what do the different names mean?

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Isis)

The original name for the group in Arabic was Al-Dawla Al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham. The first three words translate to the Islamic State of Iraq while “al-Sham” refers to Syria and the wider surrounding area.

The group’s stated goal is to restore an Islamic state, or caliphate, in the entire region.

But in reality it is neither Islamic, nor is it a State. The group has no standing with faithful Muslims, nor among the international community of nations.

The acronym poses an issue for the many companies and brands around the world already using it or named after the ancient Egyptian goddess of the same name.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil)

The undefined region around Syria is historically referred to as the Levant (an archaic French phrase for the “lands of the rising sun”), including modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and Jordan.

Daesh

‘Daesh cutthroats’.” Daesh, sometime spelled DAIISH or Da’esh, is short for Dawlat al-Islamiyah f’al-Iraq wa al-Sham.

Many Arabic-speaking media organisations refer to the group as such and there is an argument it is appropriately pejorative, deriving from a mixture of rough translations from the individual Arabic words, notably the Arabic verb دعس, within the name. The reason DAESH hates being called DAESH is because it’s similar to the verb Daes, which means “one who crushes something underfoot. It also sounds similar to Dahes, or “one who sows discord.”

So, from where did these terrorist groups got power, arms and finance? You do not have to look very far…. just look into your own government secret agencies, you have never questioned where your tax money goes? You have never questioned why you should renew your defense system with billions of dollars or euros? You never asked your government now that the Soviet Union seized (our first boogeyman) to exist why do we have another boogeyman? I am wondering had I asked, investigated where my tax money goes and getting the government to answer me maybe the world we live in would have been a better place to live. But like all of you, I was very busy with my career, believed that my government wanted the best for its civilians. How gullible I was then, never crossed my mind that my government would sacrifice me and millions like me to death so that we can create another war, another boogeyman just for the politicians and the elitists to get more money in their pockets…. while we starve, have health issues, been put into jail as a terrorist because some of us dare to tell the truth. Trying to get a job but always something happens and they tell me “sorry we can not hire you” this has been going on for the last 4 years, when America and its allies decided they needed a regime change in Libya without taking any consideration of the civilians who were happy with what they had. America and its rogue CIA had decided to install a new boogeyman in the Mediterranean peninsula, to force the European Union (which its majority in religion is Christian) into war with the so-called fanaticism Islam. America needs to bring back the crusaders… destabilize the Arab countries break them into smaller pieces so that they do not have the strength to fight them back. A very clever plan, it was in the making 30 years ago…. when I first heard about it I was in my early 20’s and I thought this could never happen that is how gullible I was…. I had argued with my friend who was a member of the PLO at the time, he was assassinated in front of my eyes and I still didn’t believe it. But if you check the evidence everything was in front of us, but we chose not to see it.

So where did they come from:

During the 1970′s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.

Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980′s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.

America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.

The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. 

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria. 

There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles. 

America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.

ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.

America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance.  By rapidly increasing both government secrecy and surveillance, The American government is increasing its power to watch its citizens, while diminishing its citizens’ power to watch their government. Terrorism is an excuse to justify mass surveillance, in preparation for mass revolt. 

The so-called “War on Terror” should be seen for what it really is: a pretext for maintaining a dangerously oversized U.S. military. The “War on Terror” in October 2001, it has cost the American taxpayer approximately 6.6 trillion dollars and thousands of fallen sons and daughters; but, the wars have also raked in billions of dollars for Washington’s military elite.

In fact, more than seventy American companies and individuals have won up to $27 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last three years, according to a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity. According to the study, nearly 75 per cent of these private companies had employees or board members, who either served in, or had close ties to, the executive branch of the Republican and Democratic administrations, members of Congress, or the highest levels of the military.

The US government trained, armed, funded and supported Osama bin Laden and his followers in Afghanistan during the cold war. With a huge investment of $3,000,000,000 (three billion US dollars), the CIA effectively created and nurtured bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist network using American tax-payers money. Afghanistan is one of the world’s poorest countries, where such an enormous sum sum of money would have had extraordinary value.

I think that Tony Cartalucci expresses it better than me and here is what he say’s:

US claims to be waging war against “Islamic State” whose various “al-Baghdadi” leaders do not exist.  In 2007, the New York Times revealed that long-vilified “Islamic State” leader Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi did not exist, and that the creation of this fictional character was a ruse to obfuscate the role of foreigners in the creation and perpetuation of “Al Qaeda in Iraq.” 

Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, the chief American military spokesman, said the elusive Baghdadi was actually a fictional character whose audio-taped declarations were provided by an elderly actor named Abu Adullah al-Naima. In an article titled, “Leader of Al Qaeda group in Iraq was fictional, U.S. military says,” the NYT reports that:

The NYT would also reveal the purpose of the deception:

The ruse, Bergner said, was devised by Abu Ayub al-Masri, the Egyptian-born leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who was trying to mask the dominant role that foreigners play in that insurgent organization.  

The ploy was to invent Baghdadi, a figure whose very name establishes his Iraqi pedigree, install him as the head of a front organization called the Islamic State of Iraq and then arrange for Masri to swear allegiance to him. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy, sought to reinforce the deception by referring to Baghdadi in his video and Internet statements.

The admission by US military leaders, reported in the NYT, reveals that the so-called “Islamic State” was nothing more than an appendage of Al Qaeda – with Al Qaeda itself directly armed, funded, and backed by stalwart US allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Despite the NYT and the Pentagon’s admissions, the entire ruse has continued, on an exponential scale.

US Intentionally Raised and Unleashed Al Qaeda Upon Iraq and Syria 

Al Qaeda’s current presence in Iraq and Syria, and their leading role in the fight against the Iranian-leaning government’s of Damascus and Baghdad, are the present-day manifestation of a Western criminal conspiracy exposed as early as 2007.  Revealed by two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 2007 article,  “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” it was stated explicitly that (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda

While the NYT attempted to shift blame to sponsors in “Pakistan” in 2007, the paper itself, along with many others across the West’s vast media monopolies, have since then admitted that America’s closest allies in the Middle East are behind Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq, not “Pakistan.”Hersh would go on to document in his 9-page report, the West and its regional partners intentional engineering of a devastating, regional sectarian bloodbath.

The Daily Beast would report in an article literally titled, “America’s Allies Are Funding ISIS,” that:

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), now threatening Baghdad, was funded for years by wealthy donors in Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, three U.S. allies that have dual agendas in the war on terror.

The extremist group that is threatening the existence of the Iraqi state was built and grown for years with the help of elite donors from American supposed allies in the Persian Gulf region. There, the threat of Iran, Assad, and the Sunni-Shiite sectarian war trumps the U.S. goal of stability and moderation in the region.

Unfortunately for the spin doctors at the Daily Beast, the fact that this “threat of Iran, Assad, and the Sunni-Shiite sectarian war,” has already been revealed as a joint enterprise not only among Persian Gulf autocracies, but in fact, led by the United States itself, means that Al Qaeda’s expansion in Syria and Iraq, is the verbatim manifestation of the conspiracy warned about by Hersh in 2007.

Baghdadi Ruse Not Only to Hide “Foreign” role, but to Hide US-Saudi Involvement

Today, another “al-Baghdadi” allegedly leads the “Islamic State.” His existence and leadership role is also unconfirmed and the likelihood that Al Qaeda’s “Baghdadi ruse” is simply being repeated, amid feigned and complicit ignorance by the Pentagon, is all but confirmed.  Not only does the “Islamic State’s” leader appear to be entirely fictional, but so is ISIS itself. It is nothing more than the rebranding of Al Qaeda, working seamlessly with other Western and Persian Gulf-backed militant fronts including Al Nusra, for the explicit goal of overthrowing the government of Syria and using the despoiled nation as a staging ground for a similar proxy war to be waged upon Iran.

The United States, bombing a fictional terrorist organization led by a non-existent, fictional character, is at the very heart of the ruse described by the NYT in 2007, a ruse that continues to present day. The goal is not to eliminate ISIS, but to use the fictional front as a pretext to further intervene on behalf of real militant extremists forming the core of the joint US-NATO-Saudi proxy front for the purpose of overthrowing the government in Damascus.

Attempts to portray ISIS as an “indigenous” movement sprung from the Iraqi and Syrian deserts, is to obfuscate the fact that Al Qaeda is currently harbored by NATO in nearby Turkey, and the summation of its support, fighters, weapons, and cash flows from NATO territory, not “seized oilfields” in Syria or from amongst local populations.

This reality comes into sharper focus considering other recent reports that so-called “ISIS” territory has in fact, doubled in the wake of US airstrikes, not shrunk. Fox News reports in their article, “ISIS control of Syria reportedly expands since start of US-led airstrikes,” that:

The Islamic State terror group reportedly has increased the amount of territory they control in Syria as the U.S.-led bombing campaign approaches its four-month anniversary.

The Wall Street Journal, citing U.S. government and independent assessments, say that the Islamic State, commonly known as ISIS, has control of a large swath of northeastern Syria and is creeping toward key cities in the country’s west, including Aleppo, a center of the uprising against Syrian President Bashar Assad.

At face value, it would seem as if US policy has failed utterly, if in fact its goal was to truly neutralize ISIS. But with ISIS a fictional creation led by non-existent leaders, and the stated goal of the US being the overthrow of the Syrian government, the doubling of territory held by Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda’s approach to cities like Aleppo on the brink of being liberated by Syrian troops, it is clear that America’s presence in Syria – not to mention in neighboring Iraq – is to support, not stop these terrorist forces.

Recognizing the West’s role in Syria as unprecedented, deplorable, genocidal state-sponsorship of terrorism, and treating the terrorist fronts operating in and along Syria’s borders as a foreign incursion, may allow Syria and its allies to reveal current military operations as a massive counter-terrorism effort, not a “civil war,” and allowing for more open support for the government in Damascus to ensure this effort succeeds.