ISIS Home Base: Raqqa, Syria or Washington, D.C.?Brandon Turbeville For instance, in an article and video published by the Wall Street Journal, an attempt was made to present what its like to live inside the home base of ISIS. As one might expect, the video paints a terribly bleak picture of the life of women and Syrians in general. Yet the video, as it has been presented by many mainstream outlets, falsely refers to Raqqa as the home base of ISIS. Still, in this video as well as other reports, ISIS is presented as a shadowy group that appeared out of nowhere. For instance, the WSJ states that Raqqa changed in 2014, when ISIS suddenly overran the city and made it into their home base. Yet the reality is that, while Raqqa may have been overtaken by ISIS, it is by no means their home base. The truth is that the actual home base of ISIS is located much further away than Raqqa, Syria, or anywhere in Iraq. The reality is that the home base of ISIS is located in Washington, D.C., Langley, VA, London, and other NATO countries that have provided the funding, weaponry, and direction that ISIS has used to conquer Raqqa to begin with. It is important to point out that the Islamic State is not some shadowy force that emerged from the caves of Afghanistan to form an effective military force that is funded by Twitter donations and murky secretive finance deals. IS is entirely the creation of NATO and the West and NATO remains in control of the organization. As Tony Cartalucci writes in his article Implausible Deniability: Wests ISIS Terror Hordes In Iraq, Beginning in 2011 and actually even as early as 2007 the United States has been arming, funding, and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and a myriad of armed terrorist organizations to overthrow the government of Syria, fight Hezbollah in Lebanon, and undermine the power and influence of Iran, which of course includes any other government or group in the MENA region friendly toward Tehran. Billions in cash have been funneled into the hands of terrorist groups including Al Nusra, Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and what is now being called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or ISIS. One can see clearly by any map of ISIS held territory that it butts up directly against Turkeys borders with defined corridors ISIS uses to invade southward this is because it is precisely from NATO territory this terrorist scourge originated. ISIS was harbored on NATO territory, armed and funded by US CIA agents with cash and weapons brought in from the Saudis, Qataris, and NATO members themselves. The non-lethal aid the US and British sent including the vehicles we now see ISIS driving around in. They didnt take this gear from moderates. There were never any moderates to begin with. The deadly sectarian genocide we now see unfolding was long ago predicted by those in the Pentagon current and former officials interviewed in 2007 by Pulitzer Prize-winning veteran journalist Seymour Hersh. Hershs 9-page 2007 report, The Redirection states explicitly: 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 cooperated with Saudi Arabias 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. Extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are sympathetic to Al Qaeda is a verbatim definition of what ISIS is today. Clearly the words of Hersh were as prophetic as they were factually informed, grounded in the reality of a regional conflict already engineered and taking shape as early as 2007. Hershs report would also forewarn the sectarian nature of the coming conflict, and in particular mention the regions Christians who were admittedly being protected by Hezbollah. While Hershs report was written in 2007, knowledge of the plan to use death squads to target Middle Eastern countries, particularly Syria, had been reported on even as far back as 2005 by Michael Hirsh and John Barry for Newsweek in an article entitled The Salvador Option. Regardless, Cartalucci states in a separate article, NATOs Terror Hordes In Iraq A Pretext For Syria Invasion, In actuality, ISIS is the product of a joint NATO-GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] conspiracy stretching back as far as 2007 where US-Saudi policymakers sought to ignite a region-wide sectarian war to purge the Middle East of Irans arch of influence stretching from its borders, across Syria and Iraq, and as far west as Lebanon and the coast of the Mediterranean. ISIS has been harbored, trained, armed, and extensively funded by a coalition of NATO and Persian Gulf states within Turkeys (NATO territory) borders and has launched invasions into northern Syria with, at times, both Turkish artillery and air cover. The most recent example of this was the cross-border invasion by Al Qaeda into Kasab village, Latikia province in northwest Syria. Cartalucci is referring to a cross-border invasion that was coordinated with NATO, Turkey, Israel, and the death squads where Israel acted as air force cover while Turkey facilitated the death squad invasion from inside its own borders. Keep in mind also that, prior to the rapid appearance and seizure of territory by ISIS in Syria and Iraq, European media outlets like Der Spiegel reported that hundreds of fighters were being trained in Jordan by Western intelligence and military personnel for the purpose of deployment in Syria to fight against Assad. The numbers were said to be expected to reach about 10,000 fighters when the reports were issued in March, 2013. Although Western and European media outlets would try to spin the operation as the training of moderate rebels, subsequent reports revealed that these fighters were actually ISIS fighters. Western media outlets have also gone to great lengths to spin the fact that ISIS is operating in both Syria and Iraq with an alarming number of American weapons and equipment. As Business Insider stated, The report [study by the London-based small arms research organization Conflict Armament Research] said the jihadists disposed of significant quantities of US-made small arms including M16 assault rifles and included photos showing the markings Property of US Govt. The article also acknowledged that a large number of the weapons used by ISIS were provided by Saudi Arabia, a close American ally. ISIS IS Al-Qaeda It is important to remember that the so-called leader of ISIS is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. As Voltaire Net describes Baghdadi, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is an Iraqi who joined Al-Qaeda to fight against President Saddam Hussein. During the U.S. invasion, he distinguished himself by engaging in several actions against Shiites and Christians (including the taking of the Baghdad Cathedral) and by ushering in an Islamist reign of terror (he presided over an Islamic court which sentenced many Iraqis to be slaughtered in public). After the departure of Paul Bremer III, al-Baghdadi was arrested and incarcerated at Camp Bucca from 2005 to 2009. This period saw the dissolution of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, whose fighters merged into a group of tribal resistance, the Islamic Emirate of Iraq. On 16 May 2010, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was named emir of the IEI, which was in the process of disintegration. After the departure of U.S. troops, he staged operations against the government al-Maliki, accused of being at the service of Iran. In 2013, after vowing allegiance to Al-Qaeda, he took off with his group to continue the jihad in Syria, rebaptizing it Islamic Emirate of Iraq and the Levant. In doing so, he challenged the privileges that Ayman al-Zawahiri had previously granted, on behalf of Al-Qaeda, to the Al-Nusra Front in Syria, which was originally nothing more than an extension of the IEI. Regardless, false assumptions surrounding the true leadership of ISIS would be called into question in January of 2014 when Al-Arabiya, a Saudi-owned and operated news agency, published an article as well as a video of an interrogation of an ISIS fighter who had been captured while operating inside Syria. When asked why ISIS was following the movement of the Free Syrian Army and who had given him the orders to do so, the fighter stated that he did not know why he was ordered to monitor the FSAs movement but that the orders had come from Abu Faisal, also known as Prince Abdul Rachman al-Faisal of the Saudi Royal Family. An excerpt from the relevant section of the interrogation reads as follows: Interrogator: Why do you (ISIS) monitor the movement of the Free Syrian Army? ISIS Detainee: I dont know exactly why but we received orders from ISIS command. Interrogator: Who among ISIS gave the orders? ISIS Detainee: Prince Abdul Rachman al-Faisal, who is also known as Abu Faisal. Such revelations, of course, will only be shocking news to those who have been unaware of the levels to which the Saudis have been involved with the funding, training, and directing of death squad forces deployed in Syria. Indeed, the Saudis have even openly admitted to the Russian government that they do, in fact, control a number of varied terrorist organizations across the world. Even tired mainstream media organizations such as Newsweek (aka The Daily Beast) can no longer ignore the facts surrounding the Saudis involvement with the organization of terrorist groups across the world. Note also that Voltaire Net describes al-Nusra, a documented al-Qaeda connected group, as merely an extension of the IEI (Islamic Emirate of Iraq) which itself was nothing more than a version of Al-Qaeda In Iraq. Thus, from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, came the IEI, which then became the Islamic Emirate of Iraq and the Levant. IEIL then became ISIS/ISIL which is now often referred to as IS. In other words, Nusra=Al-Qaeda-IEI=IEIL=ISIL=ISIS=IS. With the information presented above regarding the nature of the Free Syrian Army and the so-called moderate rebels, it would be entirely fair to add these moderate groups to the list as well. Although too lengthy of a study to be presented in this article, it is important to point out that al-Qaeda is entirely a creation of the West, created for the purpose of drawing the Soviets into Afghanistan in the 1970s and a host of other geopolitical goals in the middle east and around the world, 9/11 being the most memorable instance of Western intelligence al-Qaeda mobilization.[1] ISIS Attack On Taqba Airbase The Precursor To A NATO Attack On Syria Keeping in mind that ISIS is controlled and directed by NATO and Western intelligence, the fact that the death squads have recently focused on the Taqba Airbase in Raqqa province is significant. Particularly when viewed in context of the simultaneous debate taking place in front of the American public by the Obama administration on whether or not to engage in targeted airstrikes inside Syria. For those who may not see the pattern while the United States and NATO deliberated engaging in targeted airstrikes in Syria and the Syrian government subsequently states its opposition to those attacks as well as its intentions to shoot down the planes delivering those strikes if they do not coordinate with the Syrian government, death squads effectively eliminated the air defense capability of the Syrian government in the east of the country. Keep in mind, the Pentagon even stated that one of the biggest threats to an airstrike operation in Syria is the Syrian governments air defenses. Thanks to ISIS, those air defenses no longer exist in the east of Syria. This was the end game of the ISIS battle to take over Taqba from the start eliminate air defenses so that the NATO powers can launch airstrikes against the Syrian military and thus freeing up a launching pad for the terrorists to conduct attacks even deeper into Syria. US Airstrikes In Syria Information Does Not Equal Coordination The recent airstrikes by the United States and its allies allegedly against ISIS positions in Syria have been soundly condemned by both Iran and Russia. Both countries have accurately pointed out that the airstrikes were a violation of Syrias national sovereignty and a violation of international law. Syria, however, refrained from outrage and even stated that the United States informed it of the attacks before they took place. Syrias reaction caused many to believe one of two things: First, that the United States truly is focused on eliminating ISIS; and, second, that the United States and Syria are now working together to achieve this end. Despite Syrias forbearance, however, the truth is far from either of these ideas. The United States is in no way interested in destroying its own proxy army nor is it interested in working with the secular Assad government. After all, Assad and the Syrian government were and still are the ultimate target of the West to begin with. It is thus very important to note that informing Syria of attacks taking place on its soil is not the same as coordinating those attacks or cooperating with the Syrian government. In other words, information is not the same as cooperation. 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. Even Congressman Justin Amash, during the Congressional debate on whether or not to support arming the mythical moderate rebels, was able to recognize the fact that the plans to detect and degrade ISIS was a clever disguise for a war on the secular government of Syria with no options off the table, including the use of ground troops. In his own statement announcing his opposition to the amendment, Amash stated, Todays amendment ostensibly is aimed at destroying ISISyet youd hardly know it from reading the amendments text. The world has witnessed with horror the evil of ISIS: the public beheading of innocents, the killing of Christians, Muslims, and others. [] The Obama administration has tried to rally support for U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war by implying that our help would be at arms length. The amendment Congress will vote on broadly authorizes assistance to groups in Syria. It does not specify what types of weapons our government will give the groups. It does not prohibit boots on the ground. (The amendment is silent on the presidents power to order our troops to fight in the civil war; it states only that Congress doesnt provide specific statutory authorization for such escalation.) It does not state the financial cost of the war. [] If the Syrian groups that are appropriately vetted (the amendments language) succeed and oust Assad, what would result? Would the groups assemble a coalition government of anti-Assad fighters, and would that coalition include ISIS? What would happen to the Alawites and Christians who stood with Assad? To what extent would the U.S. government be obligated to occupy Syria to rebuild the government? If each of the groups went its own way, would Syrias territory be broken apart, and if so, would ISIS control one of the resulting countries? While Amash was correct to suggest that Congress should have opposed the amendment and that the amendment was actually a plan for an assault against the Syrian government as well as the fact that that anarchy, chaos, and unspeakable violence will reign supreme in Syria if the appropriately vetted groups managed to gain control of the country, Amash did miss part of the point. The truth is not that we dont know much about the groups we are funding in Syria. The truth is that we know full well that they are ISIS/Al-Qaeda terrorists, with only an occasional name change and branch off due to Western political motives or internal squabbling. That has been and still is the whole point. Assads refusal to react in frothing rage and declarations of war could very well be an attempt to save face in the eyes of world opinion and in the eyes of the Syrian people. The only other options available to the Syrian government would be to shoot down the American fighter jets and sign Syrias death warrant or to denounce the attacks and seem impotent when it comes to defending against them. Considering the options at the moment, one can clearly see how admission of foreknowledge with no immediate consequences directed at the United States might seem to be the best available selection. Who Were The Actual Targets? The low level of death squad casualties resulting from the U.S. airstrikes brings to mind one question Were the airstrikes really meant to deal a significant blow to IS? After all, the bombing in areas like Deir al-Zor would have produced minimal results against IS to begin with since the Western-backed terrorists conveniently began leaving the city and many of their positions days before the bombing began. Indeed, the SAA had already launched an offensive against death squad positions in Deir al-Zor, causing many observers to assume that the military assault was the reason IS and its moderate terrorist affiliates began evacuation. However, six days later, after bombs and missiles were rained down upon the city and surrounding areas, the reasons for death squad evacuation became clearer. It was to avoid U.S. airstrikes and move north to reinforce other IS battalions. Thus, one must ask whether or not the IS terrorists were evacuating for fear of defeat at the hands of the SAA or on the orders of the USA? In addition, while some mainstream outlets attempted to claim that the death squads simply managed to escape Deir al-Zor in order to avoid being struck by US airstrikes, the question then remains how they would have been aware of the bombing plans when even Assad was not informed until the last minute. Thus, any media outlet that claims this is the reason for low causalities among the terrorists is admitting to the fact that the terrorists had some kind of forewarning. Otherwise, how would they have known to evacuate these specific areas? Was it by intuition? Did they have a crystal ball? Or were they warned and/or ordered by their NATO commanders to reconfigure their forces in other locations? Bombing Campaign Or Death Squad Herding? The fact that the terrorist casualties were much lower than one would have expected considering the previously heavy presence of fighters in the area should lead one to question the true objective of the bombing mission. After all, some reports even put the number of dead civilians as higher than that of dead terrorists. Yet, with the terrorists evacuating Deir al-Zor, cities and towns such as Kobani (Ayn El Arab) saw a dramatic rise in the presence of IS fighters. In short, IS may have reduced the amount of fighters in Deir al-Zor but it reinforced its positions at Ayn El Arab, a smaller town but one located on the Turkish border. Significantly, the Turkish border has facilitated tens of thousands of death squad fighters in their access to Syria over the last four years making it a main artery for the influx of Western-backed foreign jihadis into Syria. The Huffington Post reported the situation in Ayn El Arab by recording the statement of a Syrian Kurd who had fled into Turkey with his family to escape IS. The report is revealing as to how the situation in Ayn El Arab disintegrated after the bombing of Deir al-Zor and the escape of terrorists from that city and region. The article reads, Because of the bombing in Raqqa, Islamic State has taken all of their weapons and brought them here. There are more and more Islamic State fighters in the last two days, they have brought all their forces here, said Ahmed Hassan, 60, a Syrian Kurd who fled to Turkey with his family. They have heavy weapons. We are running away from them. YPG havent got heavy weapons. Thats why we need help, he said, referring to the main Kurdish armed group. Thus, the new assault on Ayn El Arab might very well be an attempt to re-secure and reopen the Turkish/Syrian border so as to allow even greater numbers of IS fighters and military equipment to flood into Syria. It also goes some distance in aiding the future creation of a buffer zone, in Northern Syria, a wish of NATO since the beginning of the Syrian crisis.With the establishment of this buffer zone, a new staging ground will be opened that allows terrorists such as ISIS and others the ability to conduct attacks even deeper inside Syria. Working together with its NATO/GCC allies as well as the ever-present provocateur Israel, the United States is helping to create a buffer zone in the North and East of Syria while continuing to facilitate the opening of a third front on the Syrian border with Israel. Such a strategy was discussed in 2012 by the Brookings Institution in its publication Assessing Options For Regime Change, where it stated, An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annans leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts. [] In addition, Israels intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regimes power base and press for Asads removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syrias military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly. Are The Airstrikes Designed To Provoke Assad? One possibility of the purpose US airstrikes in Syria is that the aggressive presence of the U.S. military is in reality an attempt to poke and prod Assad into shooting down an American aircraft. As American planes currently act as a deadly and mechanical sheepdog to the terrorist herd, it is quite likely that the mission will creep closer and closer to Damascus and government-held territory. This mission creep will likely begin in and around the Aleppo region since the city and surrounding areas are strategically significant with heavy fighting taking place between government forces and the Western-backed death squads. As these airstrike missions grow closer and closer to government-held territory and Syrian military forces, perhaps even making the occasional mistake of hitting SAA military installations or soldiers, Syria will be forced into a walking a tight rope between defending itself against open US military aggression before it inflicts too much damage to Syrias military capabilities or responding in kind and sealing its own fate against the superior US Air Force. As Tony Cartalucci writes, For now, Syria and its allies must formulate carefully a strategy that resists overreaction to immense provocations, understand the true nature of Americas aggression, determining whether it was exercised from a position of strength or immense weakness, and devise countermeasures that accommodate long-term consequences of Americas current campaign. A balance between allowing the West to exhaust its last desperate options, but preventing long-term entrenchment of Western-backed proxies must be struck. At the end of the day, it is important to remember that the U.S. airstrikes against Syria are nothing more than a farce. The death squads running amok in Syria are themselves entirely creatures of NATO and they remain under NATOs command. The true enemy of ISIS, Khorasan, and the cannibals of the Levant has always been and continues to be Bashar al-Assad. An Attack On Syrian Oil Refineries An Attack On Assad Only a day after the United States launched airstrikes against alleged ISIS targets in Syria, the real reasons behind these specific targets are gradually becoming clearer. Yet, for anyone who actually thought that the U.S. airstrikes were something other than an attack on Bashar al-Assads government forces, the location and targets of the strikes may tell a different story if looked at closely. For instance, as The Associated Press reported, U.S.-led airstrikes targeted Syrian oil installations held by the extremist Islamic State group overnight and early Thursday, killing at least 19 people as more families of militants left their key stronghold, fearing further raids, activists said. [] The Islamic State group is believed to control 11 oil fields in Iraq and Syria. The new strikes involved six U.S. warplanes and 10 more from the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, mainly hitting small-scale refineries used by the militants in eastern Syria, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said. RT reports further on the strikes citing Agence France-Press, According to Agency France-Presse, strikes involved targeting an oil field in Syria administered by the Islamic State, reportedly close to positions held by the group near the towns of Al-Omar and Deir ez-Zor, journalist Zaid Benjamin reported. The US and its partners used a mix of fighter and remotely piloted aircraft to conduct 13 of airstrikes against 12 ISIL-controlled modular oil refineries located in remote areas of eastern Syria in the vicinity of Al Mayadin, Al Hasakah, and Abu Kamal and one ISIL vehicle near Dayr az Zawr, also in eastern Syria, read a statement by CENTCOM. These small-scale refineries provided fuel to run ISIL operations, money to finance their continued attacks throughout Iraq and Syria, and an economic asset to support their future operations, the statement continued. Producing between 300-500 barrels of refined petroleum per day, ISIL is estimated to generate as much as $2 million per day from these refineries. The destruction and degradation of these targets further limits ISILs ability to lead, control, project power and conduct operations. Yet while the mainstream media and the U.S. government are attempting to portray the strikes against the Syrian oil refineries as a strike against ISIS, the fact of the matter is that they are a strike against the secular government of Bashar al-Assad. Strikes Against Refineries Hurt Syria More Than ISIS Although it is true that ISIS/ moderate death squads had seized control over the oil refineries in Eastern Syria and were using them for their own strategic purposes (with the help of NATO command), it is also true that, in a large portion of these areas, the SAA (Syrian Arab Army) was poised to retake control. This is particularly the case in Dayr el Zor, where the SAA had recently launched a major offensive against the death squads causing ISIS fighters to be trapped by aerial bombardment and their escape routes cut off by the SAA. In other words, the death squads were trapped in Dayr el Zor, the city was weeks away from being liberated, and the surrounding areas were set to be reconquered by the SAA. This, of course, would have led directly to the retaking of the oil refineries by the Syrian government. Unfortunately, that opportunity has now been lost as a result of the U.S. airstrikes which destroyed the refinery infrastructure. It should also be remembered that most of the death squads fled these areas after being given forewarning of a series of imminent American airstrikes, thus causing the civilian casualties to be higher in number than those of the ISIS fighters the strikes were allegedly targeting. Indeed, many of these fighters have appeared in Northern Syria on the Syria/Turkey border reinforcing other death squad battalions in efforts to reopen supply lines from Turkey. Similar situations are found in the other locations mentioned as targets of U.S. airstrikes such as al-Hasakah where the SAA had made significant gains alongside Kurdish forces. Thus, as SAA forces moved in to retake control of the oil refineries managed by terrorists funded by Western powers, the United States initiated airstrikes just in the nick of time to deprive SAA forces of the opportunity to seize some of the oil refinery infrastructure it desperately needs. It is also important to note that virtually none of the infrastructure being destroyed by the United States airstrikes was built by ISIS. It was built by the Syrian government. The reality of the bombing campaign is that the United States and its allies are destroying important regions of Syria and leaving nothing of real value for the Syrian military to retake after its long-fought battles against ISIS. Thus, headlines across the world should more accurately read US Bombs Syrian Oil Refineries To Prevent Assad From Retaking Them. Still, one should keep in mind that it is not only the oil refineries which are being targeted but whole neighborhoods filled with civilians. One such neighborhood was the town of Kfar Daryan. ISIS As An Oil Company? The excuse peddled by Western governments and their lapdog media outlets to justify the bombing of Syrian oil refineries is that the goal is to disrupt ISIS oil revenue and thus break its funding. The narrative provided to the general public is that ISIS is funding itself by oil sales on the black market to the tune of millions of dollars per day. Of course, while it is most likely true that ISIS is using their commandeered oil sites to support themselves on a number of fronts, and even attempting (with some success) to sell that oil, the idea that ISIS is somehow able to evade the most sophisticated monitoring network in the entire world during the process of obtaining, refining, selling, and delivering oil across the region is entirely unbelievable. Regardless, it must be pointed out that, among the countries listed as hosting ISIS customers by mainstream outlets like CNN, Turkey and Jordan are at the top of the list, both close American allies and one a member of NATO. Even more interesting is the fact that ISIS has also allegedly sold black market oil to buyers in a number of EU member states. Yet the idea itself seems like more of a cover to mask the true nature of the funding of ISIS and other takfiri militants operating in Iraq and Syria, namely that the funding is coming from the United States, NATO, and the GCC. Like the ridiculous claims that ISIS was funding itself entirely through secretive private Twitter donations, the oil sales argument is one that should be taken with a healthy dose of salt. After all, mainstream outlets are also asserting that ISIS is selling some of this oil to the Syrian government, a lose-win-lose situation for both sides and a rather poor attempt to portray Assad as an ally of ISIS. In reality, it should always be remembered that ISIS is entirely a creation of the West and that it remains fundamentally under the control of NATO and the GCC. In the meantime, all this talk about oil refineries no doubt has Western oil companies licking their lips. No-Fly Zone Over Syria? In what is more proof that the NATO operation against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is merely Libya 2.0, the Obama administration is now stating that it is open to the possibility of establishing a no-fly zone over Syria. The statements, made by both Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and General Martin E. Dempsey, are supposed to hinge upon an agreement with Turkey, that is itself calling for a buffer zone, one of the wishes of NATO since the very beginning of the Syrian crisis. According to the New York Times, Hagel stated that Weve discussed all these possibilities and will continue to talk about what the Turks believe they will require. Dempsey added that a buffer zone might at some point become a possibility although he also stated that it should not be considered imminent. A buffer zone and/or a no-fly zone, of course, is tantamount to war and an open military assault against the sovereign secular government of Syria since the implementation of such a zone would require airstrikes against Assads air defense systems. Turkey is now whining and groaning over an influx of Syrian refugees as a result of a humanitarian crisis that it helped create with its support and facilitation of Islamic fundamentalist death squad forces funded by the West and allowed to travel into Syria through Turkeys borders. The most recent influx of refugees came from the city of Kobani, where ISIS fighters were herded by American airstrikes for the purposes of reinforcing the fighters already battling Kurdish and Syrian forces there. Conclusion Regardless of the mainstream media reports to the contrary or the claims of Western governments that ISIS is a phenomenon unparalleled in world history who now bases its operations out of Syria, the truth is far from that. The reality of the situation is that the homebase of ISIS is not in Raqqa, Syria but in Washington, D.C. For those of us who have tried to warn of and prevent a direct military intervention in Syria, we must now continue to keep the Syrian people in our thoughts and prayers. But we must also keep the United States in those thoughts and prayers. Like in Libya, for what is being done in our name, we are earning some terrible karmic consequences. The United States has sown some very bitter seeds in recent years. Unfortunately, there will be a day when we all are forced to reap the bitter harvest. Notes: [1] Tarpley, Webster Griffin. 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made In USA. 5th Edition. Progressive Press. 2011. Recently from Brandon Turbeville: Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelors Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies,Five Sense Solutionsand Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria.Turbeville has published over 300 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbevilles podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com. 