According to the Washington Times, A White House strategy document regards the group as a moderate alternative to more violent Islamist groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State.The policy of backing the Muslim Brotherhood is outlined in a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11. The directive was produced in 2011 and outlines administration support for political reform in the Middle East and North Africa, according to officials familiar with the classified study. Efforts to force the administration to release the directive or portions of it under the Freedom of Information Act have been unsuccessful.
See Obama’s Treasonous Betrayal of America: Documented, Obama is on the side of the enemy
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=11&v=V7XPLKfa9eI
Allen West (a former Army Lieutenant Colonel) joined the discussion to agree, and noted that it’s illegal to arm an illegal immigrant under Title 18 USC 922 (d)(5a).
When has law ever meant anything to Barack Hussein Obama? But the more important thing that we have to come to understand is if you go to the Constitution, to Article I, Section VIII, Clause number 4, that says that only the Congress has the ability to make rules or laws in regards to naturalization; the president does not have that. So, when you go back and look at the executive order he did, calling it a DREAM Act, you look at this edict that he has sent down, it is an unlawful order.
As West notes, it is bad enough that Barack Obama is ready to use an executive order to grant Amnesty to more than 11 million illegal immigrants, while making a mockery of our immigration laws. But allowing those illegals to serve in the military and carry firearms? That is extremely dangerous as Obama works to change the demographics of this country.
==========
US AND ISRAELI INVOLVEMENT WITH ISIS
Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief (http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com).
The UN has now published a report that claims that Israeli Defense forces have regular contact with ISIS. Nathaniel Downes has the story:
Traditionally such groups as ISIS have relied upon Saudi Arabia for support. [Actually, the Saudis are only acting as a surrogate for the US, who, in turn, give the corrupt Saudi royal family protection against any Arab Spring uprisings.]
In a new report from the UN, it is revealed that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) were maintaining regular contact with members of the so-called Islamic State since May of 2013. Initial reports from the IDF stated that this was only for medical care for civilians, but that story fell apart when the UN observers identified direct contact between IDF forces and ISIS soldiers, including giving medical care to ISIS fighters. Observations even included the transfer of two crates from the IDF to ISIS forces, the contents of which have not been confirmed at this time. Further the UN report identified what the Syrians label a crossing point of forces between Israel and ISIS, a point of concern brought before the UN Security Council. This report from the UN strengthens the claims by the Syrian regime that Israel is heavily involved in operations within the nation.
I’ve long maintained that the only way the US and Britain can run false flag terror operations like ISIS and al-Qaeda is by using highly trained Israeli-Arab infiltrators and spies.
This is part of a continuing pattern of Israeli support for the Islamic State. It was only two months ago that Israel attacked Syrian forces in opposition to ISIS forces. Israeli attacks even killed an Iranian military adviser for the Syrian military just two weeks ago. The U.S.’s financing of ISIS, part of the effort against Syrian president Assad, is well documented, as well. That the efforts to undermine the Assad regime were in turn strengthening the same terrorist group which recently set a Jordanian pilot on fire to set an example is conveniently ignored by the higher up military command.
He’s right; the main motive behind the US funding of and creation of ISIS is to take down Assad. Israel is refusing to bomb Iran until Syria is eliminated as a retaliation threat. Brandon Turbeville at Activist Post writes about the recent Pentagon admission that the US has been supporting ISIS since before the Benghazi scandal broke:
On May 18, Judicial Watch published a selection of recently declassified documents that were obtained from the US Department of Defense and the US State Department as a result of a lawsuit filed against the US government. The lawsuit and most of the documents contained within the release revolved around the Benghazi scandal but a deeper look into the documents dating back to 2012 reveal an even bigger story – that the US and NATO have admitted in their own documents to supporting al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
The documents demolish the “official story” of Western governments promoted from the beginning of the Syrian crisis until the present day – that the “rebellion” was organic, grassroots, and made up of moderates and freedom-loving democracy proponents. The document states unequivocally that “The Salafist [sic] the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.” It points out that “The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.” Tellingly, the report then states that “AQI supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and through the media . . .”
Indeed, the documents clearly admit that the crisis unfolding in Syria was never a moderate rebellion fighting for democracy, it was made up of fighters from the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda (al-Qaeda In Iraq/Al-Nusra Front) from the very beginning.
The document continues in its revelations by stating that:
“Opposition forces are trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to the western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders. Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts. This hypothesis is most likely in accordance with the data from recent events, which will help prepare safe havens under international sheltering, similar to what transpired in Libya when Benghazi was chosen as the command center of the temporary government.”
“Opposition forces,” of course, are al-Qaeda, al-Nusra Front, and ISIS, as mentioned and defined earlier by the DIA document. Thus, any questions of whether or not the US and its NATO/GCC allies have been supporting jihadists and terrorists, should be answered with the admissions made within these pages.
What is also well-known but now finally admitted to by the US government itself is the plan to establish “buffer zones” and “safe zones” on the Libyan model inside Syria. Such a plan has been covered extensively by myself and Tony Cartalucci (as well as many others in the alternative media) when the concept was considered a “conspiracy theory.”
In regards to geopolitical concerns and the breakup and destruction of the Syrian government as well as the Iraqi leadership, the document states:
If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria, (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).
This “Salafist principality” is obviously the Islamic State, particularly when one visualizes the maps of territory claimed by the jihadist organization. As the DIA document admits, the expansion of the ISIS principality is taking place with the support and assistance of Western powers. This much is evidenced by the fact that the ISIS fighters running rampant across Iraq and especially Syria could never have been able to do so were it not for the support given to them by the GCC and NATO. These fighters certainly could never have held such territory if Western military assistance, Saudi money, and Turkish/Israeli logistics and intelligence had not been provided to them.
According to Brad Hoff, [managing editor of Levant Report] a former US Marine who served during the early years of the Iraq War and as a 9/11 first responder at the Marine Corps Headquarters in Battalion Quantico from 2000 to 2004, the just released Pentagon report for the first time provides stunning affirmation that:
“US intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a US strategic asset.”
Critics of the US-led strategy in the region have repeatedly raised questions about the role of coalition allies in intentionally providing extensive support to Islamist terrorist groups in the drive to destabilize the Assad regime in Syria.
The conventional wisdom is that the US government did not retain sufficient oversight on the funding to anti-Assad rebel groups, which was supposed to be monitored and vetted to ensure that only ‘moderate’ groups were supported.
However, the newly declassified Pentagon report proves unambiguously that years before ISIS launched its concerted offensive against Iraq, the US intelligence community was fully aware that Islamist militants constituted the core of Syria’s sectarian insurgency.
Steve Chovanec of Global Research, provides specific evidence of how the US is going easy on ISIS to make sure it isn’t defeated in Iraq:
The fall of Mosul in June of 2014... was simply given away to by a battle-hardened army of 350,000 men to a lightly armed brigade of roughly 1,300 Islamists(3), the commanding military officers specifically ordering their subordinates to leave their weapons for the jihadi’s and to flee. One Iraqi army soldier described that, “on the morning of June 10 his commanding officer told the men to stop shooting, hand over their rifles to the insurgents, take off their uniforms, and get out of the city.”
Had this “remarkable” fall been desired by the US-coalition in order to “isolate” the “strategic depth of Shia expansion” in Iraq? Or rather “Had the senior Iraqi commanders been instructed by their Western military advisers to hand over the city to the ISIS terrorists? Were they co-opted?” as Professor Michel Chossudovsky had asked when this occurred?
Similarly, the more recent fall of Ramadi is equally as dubious. The US-led coalition, which had promised to defend Iraq against the Islamic State, basically allowed Ramadi to fall, conducting only 7 airstrikes during the battle, which is such a low number as to be completely irrelevant. The remarkably weak excuse was that a great sandstorm had prevented them from conducting regular attacks. This despite the fact that the next day ISIS was holding victory parades among perfectly clear skies, the militants assembling in massive rows down the wide open street. With no “sandstorm” excuse, airstrikes could have easily wiped out entire factions of the extremists the US is supposedly fighting, yet none occurred. Why? Had this too been desired by the US-coalition in order to “isolate” the “strategic depth of Shia expansion” in Iraq?
Wahda Al-Jumaili, an advisor to Iraq’s parliamentary speaker, speaking of the city’s fall the day after stated “Whether this was the result of treason, neglect, or conspiracy, or a regional or international plot… Even the international coalition has played a bad role. People saw the international coalition dropping weapons for ISIS. They dropped heavy weaponry to the forces of terrorism in Ramadi. This is an act of treason by the international coalition forces.”
This, however, is not the first time an Iraqi politician has accused the US-coalition of dropping weapons and aid to ISIS, this is instead a phenomenon that has been going on for some time now, in one incident two British planes were even shot down by the Iraqi’s under charges that they were dropping weapons to ISIS. Photographic evidence was taken of the downed planes. Iraqi parliamentarian Jome Divan stated that “The international coalition is only an excuse for protecting the ISIL and helping the terrorist group with equipment and weapons. The coalition has not targeted ISIL’s main positions in Iraq.” This being only one of a plethora of Iraqi politicians who have consistently been making these claims for some time now.
In any event the spillover to Iraq and the fall of Mosul and Ramadi were predictable consequences of the Wests’ Syria policy, and in some instances it appears as though the West aided in their fall, so at the very least they were an accepted consequence in the strategy against Syria and Iran, and at the worst they were an intended partition of Iraq.
