Christians Are Being Persecuted By Islamic Terrorists

George Washington's picture

Christians are being persecuted by Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Syria.

The “ISIS” Islamic terrorists have literally CRUCIFIED people in Iraq recently, and have marked the houses of Christians … presumably for execution.

They have told Christians in Mosel, “convert to Islam or die“. They have pulled down crosses at churches in Iraq.   Thousands of residents of Iraq’s biggest Christian town have been forced to flee their homes as the ISIS killers overran their town and said: “leave, convert or die“.

The ISIS terrorists are not only beheading adult Christians, but they are systematically beheading CHILDREN.

In Syria, rebels fighting against the Syrian government told Christians, “Either you convert to Islam or you will be beheaded.”   Syrian rebels slit the throat of Christian man who refused to convert to Islam, taunting his fiance by yelling: “Jesus didn’t come to save him!”  And – like the Islamic terrorists in Iraq – they’ve  CRUCIFIED Christians.

A former Syrian Jihadi says the rebels have a “9/11 ideology”.  Indeed, they’re literally singing Bin Laden’s praises and celebrating the 9/11 attack:


It’s obvious that the Islamic terrorists are threatening Christians. And they’re threatening Jews as well.

Our Government Is BACKING Islamic Terrorists

But did you know that irrefutable proof shows that our government is backing Islamic terrorists?

ABC News reports:

The Sunni rebels [inside Syria] are supported by the Islamist rulers of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, as well as the U.S., France, Britain and others.

So the U.S. is directly supporting the terrorists … and close U.S. allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey France and Britain are also supporting them.

World Net Daily reports that the U.S. trained Islamic jihadis – who would later join ISIS - in Jordan.

Der Spiegel and the Guardian confirmed that the U.S., France and England trained hundreds if not thousands of Islamic fighters in Jordan.

The Jerusalem Post and Breitbart report that an ISIS fighter says that Turkey funds the terrorist group. Turkey is a member of NATO and – until very recently – a close U.S. ally.

The Independent headlines “Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country”:

Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: “The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally ‘God help the Shia’. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them.”




There is no doubt about the accuracy of the quote by Prince Bandar, secretary-general of the Saudi National Security Council from 2005 and head of General Intelligence between 2012 and 2014, the crucial two years when al-Qa’ida-type jihadis took over the Sunni-armed opposition in Iraq and Syria. Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute last week, Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004, emphasised the significance of Prince Bandar’s words, saying that they constituted “a chilling comment that I remember very well indeed”.


He does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities may have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of Iraq. He said: “Such things simply do not happen spontaneously.” This sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Sunni majority provinces is much beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and would be unlikely to cooperate with Isis without their consent.




Unfortunately, Christians in areas captured by Isis are finding this is not true, as their churches are desecrated and they are forced to flee. A difference between al-Qa’ida and Isis is that the latter is much better organised; if it does attack Western targets the results are likely to be devastating.




Dearlove … sees Saudi strategic thinking as being shaped by two deep-seated beliefs or attitudes. First, they are convinced that there “can be no legitimate or admissible challenge to the Islamic purity of their Wahhabi credentials as guardians of Islam’s holiest shrines”. But, perhaps more significantly given the deepening Sunni-Shia confrontation, the Saudi belief that they possess a monopoly of Islamic truth leads them to be “deeply attracted towards any militancy which can effectively challenge Shia-dom”.


Western governments traditionally play down the connection between Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist faith, on the one hand, and jihadism, whether of the variety espoused by Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida or by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s Isis. There is nothing conspiratorial or secret about these links: 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private donors who funded the operation.




But there has always been a second theme to Saudi policy towards al-Qa’ida type jihadis, contradicting Prince Bandar’s approach and seeing jihadis as a mortal threat to the Kingdom. Dearlove illustrates this attitude by relating how, soon after 9/11, he visited the Saudi capital Riyadh with Tony Blair.


He remembers the then head of Saudi General Intelligence “literally shouting at me across his office: ’9/11 is a mere pinprick on the West. In the medium term, it is nothing more than a series of personal tragedies. What these terrorists want is to destroy the House of Saud and remake the Middle East.’” In the event, Saudi Arabia adopted both policies, encouraging the jihadis as a useful tool of Saudi anti-Shia influence abroad but suppressing them at home as a threat to the status quo. It is this dual policy that has fallen apart over the last year.


Saudi sympathy for anti-Shia “militancy” is identified in leaked US official documents. The then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in December 2009 in a cable released by Wikileaks that “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan] and other terrorist groups.”




Saudi Arabia and its allies are in practice playing into the hands of Isis which is swiftly gaining full control of the Sunni opposition in Syria and Iraq.




For all his gargantuan mistakes, Maliki’s failings are not the reason why the Iraqi state is disintegrating. What destabilised Iraq from 2011 on was the revolt of the Sunni in Syria and the takeover of that revolt by jihadis, who were often sponsored by donors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates. Again and again Iraqi politicians warned that by not seeking to close down the civil war in Syria, Western leaders were making it inevitable that the conflict in Iraq would restart. “I guess they just didn’t believe us and were fixated on getting rid of [President Bashar al-] Assad,” said an Iraqi leader in Baghdad last week.


Of course, US and British politicians and diplomats would argue that they were in no position to bring an end to the Syrian conflict. But this is misleading. By insisting that peace negotiations must be about the departure of Assad from power, something that was never going to happen since Assad held most of the cities in the country and his troops were advancing, the US and Britain made sure the war would continue.




Saudi Arabia has created a Frankenstein’s monster over which it is rapidly losing control. The same is true of its allies such as Turkey which has been a vital back-base for Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra by keeping the 510-mile-long Turkish-Syrian border open.

Remember, Al Qaeda wasn’t even in Iraq until the U.S. invaded that country.

The Daily Beast (a media company formerly owned by Newsweek) notes, in a story entitled “America’s Allies Are Funding ISIS”:

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.




A key component of ISIS’s support came from wealthy individuals in the Arab Gulf States of Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Sometimes the support came with the tacit nod of approval from those regimes ….


Gulf donors support ISIS, the Syrian branch of al Qaeda called the al Nusrah Front, and other Islamic groups fighting on the ground in Syria ….


Donors in Kuwait, the Sunni majority Kingdom on Iraq’s border, have taken advantage of Kuwait’s weak financial rules to channel hundreds of millions of dollars to a host of Syrian rebel brigades, according to a December 2013 report by The Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank that receives some funding from the Qatari government.




“The U.S. Treasury is aware of this activity and has expressed concern about this flow of private financing. But Western diplomats’ and officials’ general response has been a collective shrug,” the report states.


When confronted with the problem, Gulf leaders often justify allowing their Salafi constituents to fund Syrian extremist groups ….


That’s what Prince Bandar bin Sultan, head of Saudi intelligence since 2012 and former Saudi ambassador in Washington, reportedly told Secretary of State John Kerry when Kerry pressed him on Saudi financing of extremist groups earlier this year. Saudi Arabia has retaken a leadership role in past months guiding help to the Syrian armed rebels, displacing Qatar, which was seen as supporting some of the worst of the worst organizations on the ground.

Business Insider notes:

The Islamic State for Iraq and the Levant … is also receiving private donations from wealthy Sunnis in American-allied Gulf nations such as Kuwait, Qatar, and, possibly, Saudi Arabia.




As far back as March, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of openly funding ISIS as his troops were fighting them.


“I accuse them of inciting and encouraging the terrorist movements. I accuse them of supporting them politically and in the media, of supporting them with money and by buying weapons for them,” he told France 24 television.


In Kuwait, donors have taken advantage of weak terror financing control laws to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to various Syrian rebel groups, including ISIS, according to a December 2013 report by The Brookings Institution, which receives some funding from the government of Qatar.


“Over the last two and a half years, Kuwait has emerged as a financing and organizational hub for charities and individuals supporting Syria’s myriad rebel groups,” the report said, adding that money from donors in other gulf nations is collected in Kuwait before traveling through Turkey or Jordan to reach the insurgents.




Ironically, Kuwait is a staging area for individuals funneling money to an ISIS organization that is aligned with whatever is left of the Baathist regime once led by Saddam Hussein. In 1990, the U.S. went to war with Iraq over Hussein’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

We noted last year:

Most of the Syrian “rebels” are Al Qaeda. The U.S. government has designated these guys as terrorists. Things are getting worse, not better: Al Qaeda is gaining more and more power among the rebels. The U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel have been backing these guys for years. Indeed, we’ve long known that most of the weapons we’re shipping to Syria are ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda. And they apparently have chemical weapons.

In fact, Obama signed a special exemption to the law barring arming of terrorists.

We’re now shipping heavy weapons to the Islamic extremists such as anti-tank (“TOW” missiles) and possibly even anti-aircraft weapons
Screenshot from Youtube video showing Syrian Islamic extremist using a TOW provided by the U.S.

Most of those arms have now ended up in the hands of ISIS.

And the Jihadist credited with being the “military mastermind” of the recent ISIS victories is named Tarkhan Batirashvili.  He’s not Arabic, but rather Chechen.    He doesn’t look like an Arab: he’s fair-skinned, with a long red beard.

Who are Chechens? Their country – Chechnya – was part of the Soviet Union. After the USSR broke up, the Chechens launched wars and terrorist attacks to try to gain independence from Russia.

The Wall Street Journal reported last year that Batrashvili has made the wars in Syria and Iraq “into a geopolitical struggle between the US and Russia.” 

Sadly, the U.S. has supported Sunni Islamic terrorists in Chechnya as a way to harass Russia. (And our backing of such extremists in Chechnya may well have led to the Boston bombings).

As shown below, the U.S. has been backing Islamic terrorists as part of its geopolitical struggle against Russia for many decades.

We Created Terrorists to Fight the Soviets in Afghanistan

Top American officials admit that the U.S. armed and supported Bin Laden and the other Mujahadin – which later morphed into Al Qaeda – in the 1970s, in order to fight the Soviets.

Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted on CNN that the U.S. organized and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of “Al Qaeda” in the 1970s to fight the Soviets. Brzezinski told Al Qaeda’s forefathers – the Mujahadin:

We know of their deep belief in God – that they’re confident that their struggle will succeed. That land over – there is yours – and you’ll go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and you’ll have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right, and God is on your side.


CIA director and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates confirmed in his memoir that the U.S. backed the Mujahadin in the 1970s.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agrees:


MSNBC reported in 1998:

As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow’s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar – the MAK – which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.


What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan’s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation.




The CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan … found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to “read” than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow.




To this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee making those decisions, told my colleague Robert Windrem that he would make the same call again today even knowing what bin Laden would do subsequently. “It was worth it,” he said.


“Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union,” he said.

Indeed, the U.S. started backing Al Qaeda’s forefathers even before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. As Brzezinski told Le Nouvel Observateur in a 1998 interview:

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.




Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?


B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

The Washington Post reported in 2002:

The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings ….


The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books ….

The Council on Foreign Relations notes:

The 9/11 Commission report (PDF) released in 2004 said some of Pakistan’s religious schools or madrassas served as “incubators for violent extremism.” Since then, there has been much debate over madrassas and their connection to militancy.




New madrassas sprouted, funded and supported by Saudi Arabia and U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, where students were encouraged to join the Afghan resistance.

And see this.

Veteran journalist Robert Dreyfuss writes:

For half a century the United States and many of its allies saw what I call the “Islamic right” as convenient partners in the Cold War.




In the decades before 9/11, hard-core activists and organizations among Muslim fundamentalists on the far right were often viewed as allies for two reasons, because they were seen a fierce anti-communists and because the opposed secular nationalists such as Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, Iran’s Mohammed Mossadegh.




By the end of the 1950s, rather than allying itself with the secular forces of progress in the Middle East and the Arab world, the United States found itself in league with Saudi Arabia’s Islamist legions. Choosing Saudi Arabia over Nasser’s Egypt was probably the single biggest mistake the United States has ever made in the Middle East.


A second big mistake … occurred in the 1970s, when, at the height of the Cold War and the struggle for control of the Middle East, the United States either supported or acquiesced in the rapid growth of Islamic right in countries from Egypt to Afghanistan. In Egypt, Anwar Sadat brought the Muslim Brotherhood back to Egypt. In Syria, the United States, Israel, and Jordan supported the Muslim Brotherhood in a civil war against Syria. And … Israel quietly backed Ahmed Yassin and the Muslim Brotherhood in the West Bank and Gaza, leading to the establishment of Hamas.


Still another major mistake was the fantasy that Islam would penetrate the USSR and unravel the Soviet Union in Asia. It led to America’s support for the jihadists in Afghanistan. But … America’s alliance with the Afghan Islamists long predated the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and had its roots in CIA activity in Afghanistan in the 1960s and in the early and mid-1970s. The Afghan jihad spawned civil war in Afghanistan in the late 1980s, gave rise to the Taliban, and got Osama bin Laden started on building Al Qaeda.


Would the Islamic right have existed without U.S. support? Of course. This is not a book for the conspiracy-minded. But there is no question that the virulence of the movement that we now confront—and which confronts many of the countries in the region, too, from Algeria to India and beyond—would have been significantly less had the United States made other choices during the Cold War.

In other words, if the U.S. and our allies hadn’t backed the radical violent Muslims instead of more stable, peaceful groups in the Middle East, radical Islam wouldn’t have grown so large.

Pakistani nuclear scientist and peace activist Perez Hoodbhoy writes:

Every religion, including Islam, has its crazed fanatics. Few in numbers and small in strength, they can properly be assigned to the “loony” section. This was true for Islam as well until 1979, the year of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Indeed, there may well have been no 911 but for this game-changer.




Officials like Richard Perle, Assistant Secretary of Defense, immediately saw Afghanistan not as the locale of a harsh and dangerous conflict to be ended but as a place to teach the Russians a lesson. Such “bleeders” became the most influential people in Washington .




The task of creating such solidarity fell upon Saudi Arabia, together with other conservative Arab monarchies. This duty was accepted readily and they quickly made the Afghan Jihad their central cause…. But still more importantly, to go heart and soul for jihad was crucial at a time when Saudi legitimacy as the guardians of Islam was under strong challenge by Iran, which pointed to the continued occupation of Palestine by America’s partner, Israel. An increasing number of Saudis were becoming disaffected by the House of Saud – its corruption, self-indulgence, repression, and closeness to the US. Therefore, the Jihad in Afghanistan provided an excellent outlet for the growing number of militant Sunni activists in Saudi Arabia, and a way to deal with the daily taunts of the Iranian clergy.




The bleeders soon organized and armed the Great Global Jihad, funded by Saudi Arabia, and executed by Pakistan. A powerful magnet for militant Sunni activists was created by the US. The most hardened and ideologically dedicated men were sought on the logic that they would be the best fighters. Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the Jihad.


American universities produced books for Afghan children that extolled the virtues of jihad and of killing communists. Readers browsing through book bazaars in Rawalpindi and Peshawar can, even today, sometimes find textbooks produced as part of the series underwritten by a USAID $50 million grant to the University of Nebraska in the 1980′s . These textbooks sought to counterbalance Marxism through creating enthusiasm in Islamic militancy. They exhorted Afghan children to “pluck out the eyes of the Soviet enemy and cut off his legs”. Years after the books were first printed they were approved by the Taliban for use in madrassas – a stamp of their ideological correctness and they are still widely available in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.


At the international level, Radical Islam went into overdrive as its superpower ally, the United States, funneled support to the mujahideen. Ronald Reagan feted jihadist leaders on the White House lawn, and the U.S. press lionized them.

And the chief of the visa section at the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (J. Michael Springmann, who is now an attorney in private practice) says that the CIA insisted that visas be issued to Afghanis so they could travel to the U.S. to be trained in terrorism in the United States, and then sent back to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.

CIA Trained Ramzi Yousef and Other Key Terrorists

Moreover, Jane’s Defense Weekly – a respected and widely-cited British military journal – reported in October 2001 that Ramzi Yousef and the other World Trade Center bombers were trained by the CIA and ISI (via the Internet Archive):

Pakistan’s sinister Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) remains the key to providing accurate information to the US-led alliance in its war against Osama bin Laden and his Taliban hosts in Afghanistan. Known as Pakistan’s ‘secret army’ and ‘invisible government’, its shadowy past is linked to political assassinations and the smuggling of narcotics as well as nuclear and missile components.




The ISI chief, Lt Gen Mahmood Ahmed, who was visiting Washington when New York and the Pentagon were attacked, agreed to share desperately needed information about the Taliban with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other US security officials. The CIA has well-established links with the ISI, having trained it in the 1980s to ‘run’ Afghan mujahideen (holy Muslim warriors), Islamic fundamentalists from Pakistan as well as Arab volunteers by providing them with arms and logistic support to evict the Soviet occupation of Kabul.




After the ignominious Soviet withdrawal from Kabul in 1989 the ISI, determined to achieve its aim of extending Pakistan’s ‘strategic depth’ and creating an Islamic Caliphate by controlling Afghanistan and the Central Asian Republics, began sponsoring a little-known Pathan student movement in Kandhar that emerged as the Taliban. The ISI used funds from Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s federal government and from overseas Islamic remittances to enrol graduates from thousands of madrassahs (Muslim seminaries) across Pakistan to bolster the Taliban (Islamic students), who were led by the reclusive Mullah Muhammad Omar. Thereafter, through a ruthless combination of bribing Afghanistan’s ruling tribal coalition (which was riven with internecine rivalry), guerrilla tactics and military support the ISI installed the Taliban regime in Kabul in 1996. It then helped to extend its control over 95 per cent of the war-torn country and bolster its military capabilities. The ISI is believed to have posted additional operatives in Afghanistan just before the 11 September attacks in the US. Along with Osama bin Laden, intelligence sources say a number of other infamous names emerged from the 1980s ISI-CIA collaboration in Afghanistan. These included Mir Aimal Kansi, who assassinated two CIA officers outside their office in Langley, Virginia, in 1993, Ramzi Yousef and his accomplices involved in the New York World Trade Center bombing five years later as well as a host of powerful international narcotics smugglers.

Ramzi Yousef was not only the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but also a key member of the Bojinka Plot … the blueprint for 9/11. And see this.


As professor of strategy at the Naval War College and former National Security Agency intelligence analyst and counterintelligence officer John R. Schindler documents, the U.S. supported Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda terrorists in Bosnia.

U.S. Let Al Qaeda Escape After 9/11

Whatever its origins, you would think – at the least – the U.S. hammered Al Qaeda after 9/11.

In reality:

We Support Saudi Arabia and Other Sponsors of Terrorism

We noted above that Saudi Arabia is backing the ISIS terrorists.  The Saudi monarchy is one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world, and yet the U.S. has been heavily backing it for decades.

The Saudis support the most extreme strain of Islamic terrorism, and may well have backed the 9/11 hijackers And see this.

The U.S. also heavily backs the other supporters of the ISIS terrorists, including Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Turkey.  In other words, we back direct sponsors of terrorists.

Conclusion: A Long Legacy of Backing Evil

57 years ago, the U.S. and Britain approved the use of Islamic extremists – including the Muslim Brotherhood – in Syria.

According to NBC News, the U.S. and Israel are supporting terrorists in Iran.

And the U.S. intentionally armed Al Qaeda in Libya. Our backing of Sunni extremists in Libya led to attacks on our embassies in Libya and Tunisia.

The bottom line, sadly, is that the U.S. has backed the world’s most dangerous and radical Muslim terrorists for decades. And see this.

Postscript: A former high-level Al Qaeda commander has repeatedly alleged that ISIS works for the CIA.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Uncle Remus's picture

_______________ are being persecuted because they represent a perceived enemy and have the unfortunate luck of being in the vicinity.

Setarcos's picture

OMG you do go on at tedious length about what has been bleedin' obvious to anyone with half a brain cell for months, if not years.

I'll try to break it gently to you GW.  The Washington-al CIAda connection goes back to at least Iran-Contra, but I'll forgive you for not knowing, because maybe you were not born then,

So now alCIAda has evolved to become the Washington/TelAviv/NATO shock troops ... funny (not) that you never mention the Zionist part on all this, including the pivotal event of 911.

You, GW, and ISIS have one thing (at least) in common.  You both blame 19 Arab non-pilots for 911 ... well you mock blame, whilst they mock praise.

You remind me of that other disinfo jew Gordon Duff.

MarcusAurelius's picture

Although I get the ideology behind how these freedom fighters are created to begin with and the brain washing that is required, it remains a mystery to me as to what kind of diety would ask his people to slaughter others in the act of a "holy war"? This goes for the Jews too of which I am one. However survival is quite a different story. I suspect that in this case people view the horrors that are taking place because very few stood in the way of these attacks to begin with. If you are looking at Israel bombing innocent citizens and commiting what most view as genocide keep in mind that if the insurgents that are attacking them and using families as shields should ever gain the upper hand this is what you would be viewing in Israel. I wonder how many would rise to help them in their time of need? The jews tried that exact approach in the past and guess what, no one did come. They vowed at that time it would never happen again because they would never allow it. I find it sad that they cannot find an equal ground of some sort but sadly that is the way it has been for thousands of years. I feel deeply for the innocents that are getting slaughtered but they chose to fight too late. It should be an early warning to neighboring countries what is coming should this killing go unabated. "All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing".

fel.temp.reparatio's picture

"...what kind of diety [sic] would ask his people to slaughter others..."

The 'deity' you're referring to is called the almighty dollar, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with a "holy war" - mercenaries who are recruited to fight (covert) proxy wars get paid, like any other job.

jballz's picture

Oh fuck you George W.

24 hours ago you were on a full own whinge fest of those poor oppressed Hamas freedom fighters standing bravely in the face of Israeli war crimes. Now you are calling them terrorists?

You know what the difference is between Hamas and ISIS? A pole vaulting excursion and a three day walk.

You are being led by the MSM nose like the king of fucking sheep.

beaglebog's picture

Another bunch of people who gave up their guns, believing that "the State will protect us."


There's a lesson, here.

All Risk No Reward's picture

<-- Singer in the first video is CIA

<-- Singer in the first video is MI6 or Massad

Either way, the Debt Money Monopoly financed them.

The Debt Money Monopoly Cartel controls everything they finance...  the borrower is SERVANT to the lender.

Oh, and don't give up the guns unless you want Hillary to come on you like she did to Gaddafi...

joethegorilla's picture

These gloating Muslims are like bacteria. That rally looks like hell to me.

BuckShotJones's picture

My thinking is that Obama/Saudi actually want a Caliphate and have designed the transformation via ISIS.  Obama is not a Christian as he claims and is certainly pro-Islam so he will sacrifice the lives of Christians and other minorities of the Middle East to establish the ISIS caliphate. After Iraq falls, my guess is Saudi Arabia, whose oil fields are drying up, will become the power behind the Caliph’s throne in Iraq/Syria securing the Royal Families influence for generations to come via Iraq oil. The wild card is the head of ISIS. A former Gitmo prisoner released by Obama. If he wants the power instead of handing off to his benefactors – things get real dicey. A blow of the dam takes out Bagdad and hundreds of villages. Iran sweeps in quickly to secure the southern oil fields – leaving ISIS no real option but to push north into Kurdistan for its rich oil fields.

To those thinking Obama is going “back to war” with ISIS think again.

It should be noted that Obama is not going to defend the large front between ISIS and Kurdistan ( where so many refugees have fled). Obama's administration reveled the political motive of his decision - to protect only the consulate in the city of Erbil.

To those convinced that the situation on the ground is not real and a false flag, perhaps the words of religious in Iraq will convince you of the serious reality of the situation on the ground. They too know the power behind ISIS is not within ISIS itself but TPTB and they are pleading for help.

"I fear that there are no alternatives in this moment to a military action, the situation is now out of control, and there is a responsibility of the international community of not having done anything to prevent or stop all this."

Archeparch Basha Matti Warda
Syriac Catholic Archeparchy of Erbil (Kurdistan)


"The Gates of Hell have opened, and all the devils have come out. Evil has been unleashed."
[As an answer to the question, "What do you ask of the international community?"] "First of all, I ask of them to stop the flow of arms and money that supports these terrorists.

Bishop Shlemon Warduni
Auxiliary (Curial)Bishop, Chaldean Patriarchate

"The position of the American president Obama only to give military assistance to protect Erbil is disappointing. The talks about dividing Iraq are threatening. The Americans are not up to a rapid solution to give hope specifically as they are not going to attack the ISIS in Mosul and in the Nineveh Plain. The confirmation that this terrible situation will continue until the Iraqi Security Forces will fight along with Peshmerga against the ISIS militants is very depressing. The President of the Kurdistan Region said that the Kurdish troops are fighting with a terrorist State and not minor groups! While the country is under fire, the politicians in Baghdad are fighting for power.

At the end, perhaps, Mosul will not be liberated neither the villages in the Nineveh Plain. There is no strategy to dry up the sources of manpower and the resources of these Islamic terrorists. They control the oil town of Zumar and the oil fields of Ain Zalah and Batma along with the oil fields of Al-Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor in Syria. The Islamic extremist fighters are joining them from different countries around the world. "

Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon
President of the Assembly of the Catholic Bishops in Iraq
Baghdad – Iraq

And to add to this thread's information on Obama / Saudi / ISIS




El Hosel's picture

John Lennon was right... all you bitchez around the world better imagine, and make it snappy.

GovernmentMule's picture

You don't negotiate with evil, you don't reason with evil, you don't have a focus group and try and engage in intellectual discussions with evil, you don't fund evil, you do not provide support.You do not place economic sanctions on evil.

The people that cut the heads off of men, women, and children, and crucify human beings are evil.

You kill them all.

Any questions?

nmewn's picture

None, you kill evil, wherever it resides.

RichardP's picture

Did you really just walk into that trap???

No one is going to agree on who gets to define evil.  Everybody will define evil to their own satisfaction.  And everybody's definition is going to be different.

We are evil personified to the Muslims.  Some of the Muslims are evil personified to us.  And other world religions have their own groups they define as evil.

You kill evil, wherever it resides results in everybody killing everybody else.

The question remains:  how, then, shall we live our lives?  (Quote attributed to Leo Tolstoy)

Is everybody killing what they have defined as evil a proper answer?  Or does there need to be a "strongest" sombody who can impose his/their will on the rest, to bring about some semblance of order - so that prosperity might again rear its head.  History suggests that the answer is "yes" - but also gives evidence that the imposer of order gets replaced fairly regularly.

Duffy's picture

far, far over nmewn's head.

WaterWings's picture

Never INITIATE force, grasshopper. -1 for you. 

Radical Marijuana's picture

I enjoy reading articles by George Washington because they appear to be well-researched and provide links to back everything up. Furthermore, I sympathize with him responding to some comments which appear to me to be rabidly ridiculous to accuse him of, which accusations are made by people whom I would class as fanatics, because they have no sense of humour, especially regarding their own blatant hypocrisy.

While I learn from reading these articles, their information adds into the ideas which I have gradually developed, after looking at lots of similar sorts of information for quite a long time. My overall conclusions are that the people who control the USA and UK, as well as other NATO countries, are the dominate organized crime gang in the world at the present time, that effectively control the governments in those countries. The way that I connect the dots, which can not be objectively proven, but rather is the gestalt that I have developed to attempt to connect as many of the dots of data as I am aware of being rational evidence, that ought to be logically included in the attempt to construct the overall gestalt of the bigger picture that emerges from connecting all those dots, is that the world is being driven to follow through an agenda which has become rampant runaway criminal insanity, to which there are no politically practical alternatives.

In my opinion, the plan behind deliberately making fanatical Islamic forces even more fanatical, and even more dangerous, is that is being done deliberately in order to generate situations which eventually become so extremely deteriorated that those will be able to rationalize and justify the use of weapons of mass destruction, in order to be able to kill at least hundreds of millions, if not billions of people.

I have been forced to accept the apparent social facts that almost all currently dominate groups of human beings are way too criminally insane to be able to have any kind of negotiations between. Their "peace processes" are all automatically frauds and hoaxes, because they are almost totally bullshit based, while they deliberately ignore all the basic facts about the needs for better human, industrial and natural ecologies, which they would not do, IF that "peace" was not merely a sham. That is, negotiating cease fires, etc., is useless unless that does not include new systems of death controls, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to have any "peace" that lasts which is based on there not being any death controls at all!

Sure, theoretically speaking, it would be nicer if the development of weapons of mass destruction would result in enough people thinking about that there should be different systems of death controls developed, in order to survive through to superior systems of integrated human, industrial and natural ecologies. However, in fact, the world is dominated by different organized crime gangs, which are primarily based on criminally insane religions and ideologies, to a degree that nothing could possibly penetrate that kind of mental armour, to enable more rational evidence and logical arguments to discuss their collective problems and resolve those better, especially since it appears that the higher towards the top of the social pyramid systems one goes, then the more they believe in an even older old-fashioned religion or ideology.

Given that better resolutions of chronic political problems appear practically impossible, the people who deliberately provoke those situations to get actually worse, faster, have the most effective set of short-term sequences of "solutions" for those chronic political problems. Since there MUST necessarily be some death controls, operated through some murder systems, due to the chronic political problems inherent in human nature, as well as innate to all life in general, and since the ACTUAL ways that those death controlling murder systems developed through history, to become most successful, was through backing up deceits with destruction, it is that path we are still on, only amplified to more astronomical SIZES by progress in science and technology.

Most of the "terrorism" was started by inside job, false flag events, while much of the radicalization of those "terrorists" was done by the more moderate Islamic states being overthrown by assistance from Western powers, such as how the history of Iran developed through the 1950s, etc. ... In my opinion, the propagation of Islamic "terrorists" was deliberately driven by the terrorizing of them done by the Western powers. However, I do not think that those Western powers did not understand that there would be the blow back consequences. After all, those the pyramidion people in those Western powers are just as much interested in preparing to impose democidal martial law upon Western countries as they are with waging genocidal wars against other countries.

In my view, the world as a whole is following through on a criminally insane plan, which is the only one practically possible, given the degree to which the ruling classes are criminally insane, and have succeeded in turning the people they rule over into incompetent political idiots, which are just as criminally insane in their own ways.

From a theoretically perspective, it is absolutely imperative and unavoidable that there must be some sort of human ecology, in which the death controls are central to that. The only realistic superior solutions to the chronic political problems inherent in the nature of human life would have to be better death controls. Again, in theory, the development of weapons of mass destruction ought to have motivated us to think about how to operate such better death controls. However, the actual death controls were done through history via the maximum possible deceits, within which situations all of the old-fashioned religions and ideologies developed as co-opted controlled opposition, which do not provide anything which could approach better death controls.

Given that the world is dominated by the best organized gangs of criminals, operating their death controls through the maximum possible deceits, and all the significant opposition groups are just as full of the same basic bullshit as the professional liars and immaculate hypocrites that dominate those established systems, collectively we are doomed to have to play through human ecology continuing to operate its death controls through the maximum possible deceits, despite that having become more and more criminally insane, due to the development of more weapons of mass destruction.

Anyway, my current conclusions are that the most dominate, criminally insane, organized crime gang, that controls the USA, as other NATO countries, is covertly carrying through a plan to make the Islamic world become so criminally insane and dangerous that those conditions will appear to rationally justify the use of weapons of mass destruction. I think that Western powers are deliberately pumping up the Islamic fanatics in order to eventually be able to mass murder people by the hundreds of millions, if not billions. Furthermore, from the perspective those criminally insane Western powers, the blow back within Western countries that results in democidal martial law is icing on that cake.

The Grand Paradoxes continue to be that progress in science and technology is still channeled through social pyramid systems whose foundation was the ability to back up lies with violence, first in the form of warfare, whose success was based on backing up deceits with destruction, and then in the form of economics, whose success was based on backing up frauds with force. The progress in science and technology was primarily applied to become better at being dishonest and violent. So far, nothing about the progress in science and technology has done anything significant to change the kinds of old-fashioned religions and ideologies that dominate politics.

Therefore, I regard the Western powers deliberately driving the Islamic fanatics to become more criminally insane and more dangerous as an aspect of a longer term strategy to cause much more serious genocidal wars, along with democidal martial law, in the future. Meanwhile, since all of the significant public opposition groups are full of ridiculous bullshit about "peace," and promote impossible ideals which actually make the opposite happen in the real world, there are no reasonable ways to develop better death controlling murder systems, despite those being theoretically possible, and indeed, more imperative due to all of the progress made in science and technology. Hence, we are still headed towards weapons of mass destruction being used to killing hundreds of millions, if not billions of people, while there now appear to be zero realistic chances of developing better death controls.

Optimusprime's picture

That's "dominant", RM.  As always, your careful reader.  I appreciate your pov.  Bleak, yes, but seemingly motivated by a desire to not hide from the truth. 


WaterWings's picture

It was with much sadness that I reviewed your comment after having read the significance of "democide" on Wikipedia. Inconceivable, horrific atrocities must have preceded the insanity we now see at a public level; elite alliances contorted. What will the class of 2050 have in their history books? In what dominant language? 

Radical Marijuana's picture

Yeah, WaterWings, my comment was as described by OptimusPrime below, bleak, because I try not to hide from the how bad things actually are. I merely attempt to understand what is going on, during which attempts I try to articulate that understanding, such as by posting my comments.

Reading the articles by George Washington provokes me to think about "WHY" are those social situations really developing, (in ways which initially, or superficially, look like crazy incompetences.) After thinking about that, I merely record my thoughts in those comments.

(Meanwhile, I still WISH that I was not driven to come to the bleak conclusions that I have driven to!)

TheReplacement's picture

Death controls?  We all die someday no matter what.  How's that for 100% death controls?

Seriously though, don't forget that besides the manipulation and feeding the beast, as it were, those people out in the desert doing the things they are doing are doing them willfully and with glee.

As for killing possibly billions of people with WMDs, why wouldn't "they" just do it without any pretense?  Who's gonna stop them and who's gonna make them pay afterward?  Certainly there are people like that but they do not have their fingers on the triggers, yet.  This seems obvious since it hasn't happened, yet.

It's as clear as mud really.

Radical Marijuana's picture

The Replacement, of course, life comes as a package deal with death. However, given life, then it is the differential death controls that direct the evolution of life.

The history of warfare was about developing murder systems which could operate the death controls to direct the development of civilization. The history of economics was more of the same, whereby the production of destruction controlled production.

The issues of the degree to which the worst warmongers control weapons of mass destruction, in ways which would enable the most criminally insane of them to use those weapons to commit mass murders, ARE WHAT MY ENTIRE COMMENT ABOVE SPECULATED ABOUT.

Obviously, I do not know the anwers, however, what I perceive are the trends towards situation where more and more criminally insane uses of weapons of mass destruction would be enabled. Groups like ISIS could be created, and allowed to developed, originally by Western Powers, to create the eventual pretext to use weapons of mass destruction to wipe groups like ISIS out.

It is hard to imagine these things, but then, personally, I find it practically impossible to imagine how insane wars already are, much less imagine how much more insane they are going to probably get in the foreseeable future!

jacship's picture






logicalman's picture

Bugger's been unleased too damn long.

Time humanity put a choke-chain on the bastard.


p00k1e's picture

Trapped on the hill, do you think the X-ian leaders are explaining the rapture concept?  “Relax, we’ll be sucked up into the clouds at the very last moment.” 

TheReplacement's picture

I don't think you understand the rapture concept.  Why do you criticize it out of context?  That's awfully strawmanish of you.

Duffy Duck's picture

No, shit for brains - they're Christians, not Dispensationalist Ziopaths who are no more Christian than Bibi Netanyahu.

Get thee to wikipedia, and spread your ignorance here no more.

p00k1e's picture

wikipedia, huh.


Are you a dual agent?

The Zionists took wikipedia years ago.

The right's latest weapon: 'Zionist editing' on Wikipedia 'Idea is not to make Wikipedia rightist but for it to include our point of view,' Naftali Bennett, director of the Yesha Council says.

falconflight's picture

Man, you beat me to it.  Glad you're on top of flies on shyt.  :)

Duffy Duck's picture

I'm aware but think 'dispensationalist' is fairly covered - while 'supercessionist' very much is the victim of the editing of which you speak so...  all in all..


I take your point.


Jimmy Wales is a Jewish Zionist and has shown himself to be less than objective on issues pertaining to Israel/Palestine.


The USS Liberty entry is horseshit, as is Jewish Bolshevism, etc. etc.

p00k1e's picture

I wonder why the nice X-ians weren’t evac’d to Israel, End Times & all.

Duffy Duck's picture

The Zionists who run our foreign policy could not care less about dead Christians, and that very much includes the death cult of "Christian Zionism" who provide the meat sacks in the voting booths.


That doesn't mean they won't use it to sell a war in Peoria, of course.

TheReplacement's picture

Sadly I think you are right but you are wrong to limit it to such a small group.  There are plenty of "leaders" out there who want this stuff even if they are not zionists.  I'm afraid you'll miss a good part of your target and we won't really be any better off.

Uncle Remus's picture

It is unfortunate that hypocrisy, in and of itself, isn't lethal; or at the very least, excruciatingly (Biblical hellfire type) painful. The former would certainly put a large dent in the population problem (Guidestone levels I'd say) everywhere and the latter would definitely cut down on the bullshit.

d edwards's picture

George, Christians aren't being PERSECUTED by ISis, they're being SLAUGHTERED!

George Washington's picture

Yes, I say that in the main post... but you're right, that would have been a better headline.

xavi1951's picture

I posted a link two (2) days ago and someone else posted it again yesterday.

For those that need pictures in their books.

fel.temp.reparatio's picture

Disturbing images, in every sense - perhaps even sensationalist. Putting the expected 'emotional response' aside, and looking at the images more critically there's a few things that stand out.

Given a picture may be worth a thousand words, but it doesn't establish context, we're lead by the captions to ascertain what is happening or is about to happen in the images (like the baby image, which first appeared in April - see here).

Image titled "Kurdish men carry the bodies of children who died..." - three children, two of whom in almost identical position, resting their heads on a rock, like they were playing a game. Young man in red (left) apparently smiling. Young girl (?) with purple pants being placed on the ground has head raised above shoulder level (strange if being supported by the torso).

Two images titled "Another woman killed by militants." and "A woman killed by Islamic militants." - both have heads turned towards the photographer (faces blurred). Second woman has right arm raised above torso (flash shadow on bed framework) and ankles crossed.

Image titled "Children lie where they were killed..." - all children face down with their heads resting on one of their arms.

And before you accuse me of being insensitive or whatever, understand this - I'm trying to ascertain the truth, without emotion and without being lead to think in a certain way, for we seem to be living in an illusory world of smoke and mirrors, such is the way of propaganda.

Moon Pie's picture

It matters not that they are Christian.  It matters not whether they Muslim or Jew or that they are in Iraq or Africa or China.  It is pure evil.  It is a specfic spirit and form of evil that, not unlike Nazism, will demand a reaction, else humanity as we know it will cease and a humanity that no JP Morgan or office in Brussels or dinner party in Davos will either understand or have any idea how to stop. 

Love, charity and goodness.  Restraint, respect for life and law and fairness.  They've left the station. 

No less than radiation...will these and the other acts of men and women fuelled by evil intent...infect our world. 

Its on.  For real. 

Jumbotron's picture

Is won't help and your wasting your time xavi.

The Jew Haters on this site will only see what they want to see.  Their deluded mind is already made up.  Right now they're saying the photo is fake or photoshopped.

Moo-slums good....Jew baaaaaad.

Moo-slums peaceful.....Jews are Nazis.

Evidence will not change their mind......neither does reason.  They are mental brothers and sisters to their Muzzie counterparts.

Duffy's picture

I don't think Islam is peaceful..

But no one calls me Pavlovian-conditioned names when I say the Koran is fucked up.  What you don't grasp is that much of the Torah and, certainly, portions of the Talmud are just as fucked up.

People like you cry and shit their pants when anyone suggests that Judaism, too, has its dogmatic dark side.

Now, I don't care if you are "Jewish" or some bizarre American Protestant Evangelical type - religion, and nationalism are fucked, generally.

Generally, you're just whatever your parents were.  A rather stupid way to claim "truth," Jumbotron.

Duffy Duck's picture

What is it, like every 3rd post of yours you whine about Jew hate while dispensing Arab and Muslim hate.

You fucking idiot - you're too dumb to even appreciate the hypocrisy.

RichardP's picture

You guys are making this way more complex than it actually is.  Since the beginning of time, it has never been OK to just try to get along with someone who is trying to steal what is yours.

Real men defend what is theirs from those who would try to steal it.  That truth is what is missing in all of these debates.  Western civilization has created mighty things.  Arab civilization has created mighty things.  We can praise both sides for what they have created and contributed to the physical and intellectual wealth of us all.

But what does any of that have to do with what the proper response is when one side starts to take away something that belongs to the other side?  Real men, on both sides, defend what is theirs that someone is trying to steal.  Because this is true, so also is this true: the only winner is the one who can successfully defend what is his.

There is no other bottom line.

Pick a side, and mount your defense.  And may the strongest man win.

And this is exactly the point where religion becomes useful.  How do you call an army to mount a defense (or offense) against a seemingly stronger opponent?  Why, you claim that you have god on your side, so you can't loose.  And all the men who believe you come and join your army.  Without the appeal to god will help us win, you likely couldn't raise an army.

TheReplacement's picture

Can't we all just hate each other equally?

RMolineaux's picture

I don't see the point of showing a photo from the winter of 2012 in the current context.

George Washington's picture

The arms that the U.S. and our allies gave to the "moderate" Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria are now in the hands of ISIS because:

(1) they're the same, just change uniforms; and/or

(2) the "good" (in Obama/Kerry's eyes) Al Qaeda sold them or were forced to give them to ISIS.

fleur de lis's picture

Wasn't John the idiot McCain in Syria last year passing out weapons to the rebels? Was he okay with attacks on the Syrian military and terrorizing Syrian civilians as long as they stopped at the Syrian border? He's as bad as Nuland. 

nmewn's picture

McStain is a senator.

Oddly enough (cough) so was Obama & Hillary...and Kerry.

I'm seeing a pattern here.

Grimaldus's picture

Pattern? Like treason? Aiding and abetting sworn enemies of the United States?

That would be a yes.