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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

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

  1. What drivel some of this article is. I resent the misrepresentation of Zarqawi. Thanks to him, there are many less American thugs walking this earth. Zarqawi would also condemn much of what some of these IS cells are doing today.

    ISI and AQI were 2 separate groups in Iraq, although affiliated. AQI went rogue after Zarqawi was martyred in June 2006. As for Baghdadi, he was killed alongside Muhajer (Masri) in Iraq in 2010.

    The current Baghdadi is Mossad-trained agent and John McCain pal, Simon Elliot.

Comments are closed.