The Clandestine Reasons for ISIS Taking Over IraqBrandon Turbeville The irony, of course, is that al-Qaeda and ISIS would never have been in Iraq to begin with had it not been for the United States nor would it have been in Syria if it were not for the fact that the United States, NATO, and the West in general organized, funded, trained, armed, and directed it. Unfortunately, the Orwellian nature of the manner in which the news is presented to the American public almost absolves them of the blame for being utterly confused at the events transpiring overseas. From the constant fearmongering and propaganda after 9/11 over the dangers posed by Islamic terrorists to our freedoms to the subsequent open funding of al-Qaeda in other countries, the American people are constantly bounced back and forth between fear and support of the terrorist organization and networks now in control of such large portions of land in the Middle East. Thirteen years after 9/11, extremists have gained more power in the region than they ever had before the Global War On Terror began. The only question is why they were allowed to seize so much territory, particularly inside a country that was seemingly so important to the United States. Before going any further, it should be pointed out that any suggestion that the resurgence of ISIS and the march across Iraq caught the Western intelligence apparatus by surprise is entirely ludicrous. As Tony Cartalucci points out in his article, NATOs Terror Hordes In Iraq A Pretext For Syria Invasion, Thus, with ISIS being a creation of NATO and the GCC, the most realistic solution if the United States was truly interested in stopping the progression of the terrorist organization and rolling back its recent gains would be to stop funding and supporting it. Indeed, it falls entirely on the shoulders of the United States that ISIS now controls the amount of territory that it does across Syria and Iraq not only because the American invasion caused Islamic fundamentalist fighters to enter the country as a result of a power vacuum but also because it was the American forces who funded and enabled the fighters to attack Sunni and Shia members of the Iraqi resistance for the purpose of breaking the resistance to the American occupation. Even more important to recent events, however, is the fact that the United States continues to fund such fighters ISIS specifically on the Syrian front. The now famous report from Seymour Hersh entitled The Redirection eludes to as much when he wrote, 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. With millions of dollars having been openly funneled to Syrian rebels more aptly termed death squads, there is no debate that the United States, NATO, and its Gulf client states are funding ISIS and groups like it. As Tony Cartalucci points out, Still, Cartalucci correctly notes that the Western media would have its audiences believe that the emergence of al-Qaeda and ISIS in Iraq simply went unnoticed until the organization had conquered vast areas of Iraqi territory. Cartalucci writes, For these reasons, informed observers must come to the conclusion that the United States, NATO, and the GCC are entirely in control of the situation on the ground in Iraq. Again, however, the question is why? There exists two further possibilities as to what purpose allowing or directing the movement of ISIS in this manner serves. First, ISIS assault has not only allowed for the conquering of territory that will undoubtedly be used as a staging ground for further assaults against Syria by the terrorist organization but it also allows cover for ISIS to be armed with heavy military equipment such as tanks, Humvees, and possibly even helicopters as well as small arms and ammunition with which to harden its assault against the Assad government. Essentially, the recent forward march by ISIS allows NATO to arm the terrorist organization with such powerful military equipment without doing so openly in the eyes of the general public and the rest of the world. Second, and most likely, is the possibility that the United States has allowed ISIS to conquer Iraqi territory so as to justify the eventual invasion of Syria in addition to the reinvasion of Iraq. Indeed, any deployment of American troops, airstrikes, or any other type of US military force, will necessitate a battle against ISIS inside Iraq as well as cross-border strikes against the organization in Syria. Such cross-border strikes would likely be met with apathetic support from the American people since any restraint regarding borders will be presented and then viewed as placing handcuffs on the troops. Make no mistake, however, any military action taken across the border inside Syria will not be taken for the purposes of eliminating ISIS. The truth is that such military action will be nothing more than a backdoor attempt at establishing the buffer zone that NATO so ardently desired early on in the Syrian conflict. 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. In a truly interesting twist, the United States now claims to be considering an agreement between itself and Iran for the purposes of maintaining order in Iraq and the elimination of ISIS from its positions in the country. Iran, for its part, has already contributed a number of Quds forces to Iraq for purposes of maintaining security. Yet, despite the noble aims Iran may have in eliminating terrorism, Iranian leaders should remember that they too are on the Anglo-American target list. With this in mind, it would be wise to avoid spreading their own military too thin when the American war machine inevitably turns toward them. In the end, blaming American foreign policy failure for the successful march of ISIS across Iraq only serves to obfuscate and cover up the true nature of terrorism as well as its historical and recent roots. Indeed, it is not foreign policy failure that is responsible for the growth and preponderance of terrorism in Iraq and Syria, it is foreign policy success. The CIAs arming, funding, training, and directing of al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other so-called moderate terrorists is the only reason these organizations even exist in Iraq and Syria at all, much less the reason that these organizations have become so powerful so as to have the ability to launch full-scale war. The way out, of course, is simple. Peace in Iraq and Syria does not require reinvading Iraq or invading Syria. It most certainly does not involve continuing to arm the Syrian death squads. It merely requires the United States, NATO, and the GCC to stop funding and directing ISIS as well as the other terrorist organizations under their purview. Unfortunately, from the writings of various Anglo-American think tanks such as the Brookings Institution and from the behavior of Western governments, it is clear that peace is not on the menu. Recently by 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. Did you not know that they are all strange bed fellows together? Since the US is the prostitute of ISNTREAL, does it not make perfect sense that NATO, GCC, CIA, MOSSAD, The Zionist regime of Isntreal, and all their other little imps (Saudi Arabia inclusive), are all working in consort together? Better to target the real orchestrators of the this big ball of mess via the Rothschilds of Britain. Ohand last, but not least, lets not forget the media which is controlled by the Zionists! They are the ones who control, and mold the minds of the people. Words do, indeed, make the people whom, and what they are! What do you know about this, sir? 