joehawranek.com – Personal blog
www.ravenreport.us – Newsletter
“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us
guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act”.
“Patriotism means standing by your country. It does not mean
standing by your President or any other public official.” Teddy
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
ISIS and ISIL Islamic State Threats – Threats to Whom, How Big and Who Should Kill it are the topics of this article. This article concludes the right decision is to kill ISIS/ISIL because of its threat. However, it is not an immediate threat to the U.S. and it is not U.S. responsibility to do the killing. Therefore, it disagrees with the Obama decision to
bomb with U.S. forces. It would be better to bomb ISIS with Saudi Arabian forces using their 300 F-15s and their Air Forces.
First, definitions – ISIS is an Islamic Caliphate state that covers the geography of Iraq and Syria. ISIL is an Islamic Caliphate state the covers a Levant or larger area. A Levant could be the recreation of the Persian (Iran) empire or a Turkish empire or a variation thereon. The threat is the creation of a Caliphate, which is a religious state
with one religious leader that has both religious and secular power. The power will extend beyond national boundaries. To envision what is happening, think in terms of the Roman Popes about 1200 AD when they had large armies and controlled Europe through religious beliefs and armed destruction it you did not follow the Popes’ rulings.
Is there a need to kill the Islamic State (IS)? If there is, who will do it? The ISIL is trying to create a Sunni Caliphate. Most agree that the IS practice of beheading innocent people who question their state and its motives is evil and should be addressed as such. This article addresses the open question how the IS state could be killed and
who should do it.
In the Mideast, the state boundaries are often not as important as tribal boundaries. The important boundaries are religious tribal areas. After World War I, the British and the French drew the current boundaries. They were established to protect British
Petroleum protecting British interests and TOTAL (CFP) that represented French oil interests. They cut across tribal boundaries but protected the oil companies. Below you will find a map of showing the ISIL / ISIS
advances. They could not have advanced this fast and far if the Sunnis, as a tribe did not already occupy Western Iraq and they were well funded with money and equipment.
The Mideast is a conglomeration of Semite-tribes. Let us examine
what this means. In Saudi Arabia, one has the Sunni Wahhabi, which is the religion to which the Kings of Saudi Arabia adhere. This
religion allows the Kings to be “pure” in their religion, but
also allows the very rich Saudis to “play” about the secular world. In Syria, you have the Alawite tribe in the majority. The Alawite practice a form of Shiite religion and for this reason Iran, which is Shiite in its leadership, supports Syria. Iraq is now controlled by the Shiites but has a large contingent area in the Western part of Iraq that is Sunni. This area has been taken over by the ISIL radical Sunnis. They are ethnic cleansing the area of Christians and Shiites with atrocities in a manner much worse than occurred in Serbia.
Origin of the ISIL
Now let us look at ISIL. ISIL is a recent conglomeration of Sunni Islamic extremists born in Syria among the “rebels”. Research on the internet reveals an interesting story on these psychopaths – anyone who beheads another is from a
different age or a psychopath in my book. I will briefly outline the history of the modern ISIL.
The U.S. created this “Frankenstein” monster and now it must be killed. On September 3, 2014, Retired Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney admitted: “We Helped Build ISIS.” This was achieved through the overthrow of Libya, the African country that had the highest
Muslim standard of living in 2010 before the US and NATO troops invaded and killed its King. For the Muslim population, life was better before his death. The history is below:
• Zbigniew Brzezinski was directly involved in the funding and arming the Islamic extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to weaken the Soviets. Ten years of war collapsed the Soviet Union. However, the U.S. used the Mujahedin extremists to displace the Soviets. Reportedly, Brzezinski is also Obama’s handler.
• This Afghanistan operation is no secret anymore. Officially, the US government’s arming and funding of the Mujahedeen was a response to the Soviet invasion in December of 1979. However, in his memoir entitled ‘From the Shadows’ Robert Gates, director of the CIA under Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior, and Secretary of Defense under both George W. Bush and Barack
Obama, revealed that the US actually began the covert operation 6 months prior, with the express intention of luring the Soviets into a quagmire.
• Al-Nusra and ISIS are ideological and organizational decedents of these extremist elements, Mujahedeen, that the US government made use of thirty years ago.
• In Iraq, the US created a breeding ground for these extremists by invading Iraq in 2003. The vacuum of power left by removal of Saddam Hussain created AlQaeda in Iraq. From this sprang the ISIS in Syria. Had it not been for Washington’s attempt at toppling Assad by arming, funding and training shadowy militant groups in Syria, there is no way that ISIS would have been capable of
storming into Iraq in June of 2014.
• With funding provided by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, a Libyan arsenal was smuggled to Syria via Turkey (a NATO ally) in what Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist, Seymour Hersh described as “rat lines” in orde r for the West to use its jihadist Arab proxies to take down the Assad regime. As o f now, IS has reportedly about a 30% penetration of Syria.
• The Benghazi Scandals center around arms smuggling. Chris
Stevens served as the US government’s liaison to the Libyan rebels since April of 2011. With Ambassador Stevens’ death, the
administration hoped that any direct US involvement in that arms shipment was buried, and Washington would continue to claim that they had not sent heavy weaponry into Syria. I am cynical of our government in this area since I believe that this was the reason the U.S, military was told to “stand down” rather than provide support when the attacks started 11
September 2011. This conjecture will be proven or unproven with the current Congressional inquiry in process. (1,2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
• In June of 2014, ISIS made its entry into Iraq from
Syria, capturing Mosul, Baiji and almost reaching
Baghdad. The Internet was flooded with footage of
drive-by shootings, large-scale death marches, and
mass graves. In addition, it showed any Iraqi soldier
(Shiite) that was captured was executed.
• ISIS in Syria and Iraq seized large quantities of American military equipment . They took entire truckloads of humvees, helicopters, tanks, and artillery from Syria and added to this hoard with Iraqi Sunni defections. They photographed and videotaped themselves and advertised what they were doing on social media. However, Washington did not try to stop them in clear violation of military
regulations calling for the destruction of military equipment and supplies when friendly forces cannot prevent them from falling into enemy hands . As a result, the ISIS carried this equipment out of Syria into Iraq where they used it in the invasion. (8)
US Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens had served as the US government’s liaison to the Libyan rebels since April of 2011. He was killed in September 2011. With Ambassador Stevens dead, any direct US involvement in that arms shipment was buried, and Washington would continue to claim that they had not sent heavy weaponry into Syria. The US military had the means to strike these convoys of equipment leaving Syria but they did not stop the flow from Syria into Iraq. Think about it. U.S., military equipment
supplied to the insurgents in Syria illegally via the Benghazi/Turkey pipeline and justified because they could cause the removal of Assad were now being moved to Iraq by Sunni radicals (ISIS) – our stated enemy – to fight Iraqi loyal Shiites who are supplied with U.S. equipment and advisers. The Gods of war must be laughing.
Why would the U.S. do that?
It is Obama again. Though Obama plays the role of a weak, indecisive, liberal president, this is just a facade. Some presidents, like George W. Bush, relied on overt military aggression. Obama gets the same job done, but with covert means. This is not surprising considering that Zbigniew Brzezinski is reported to be his mentor.
On every level, no matter how you dice it, ISIS is a product of US government’s twisted foreign policy. (9)
ISIL / ISIS Source of Strength
The ISIL core got its weapons from the Syrian rebels that were given to them illegally by the U.S. gunrunning started at Benghazi. Subsequently we had two Secretary of States, Hillary Clinton and Bob Kerry who wanted to send the rebels more arms to “remove Assad”. Thus, the U.S. created this “monster” with our irrational international policies. The ISIL army is a diverse group of multinationals. Some characterizations are that –
1. They are dependent upon outside resources;
2. Their location is in the desert;
3. For 1,000 years, the Sunni Arabs from the Northwest have fought for control of the Islamic State area;
4. The Kurds on the north have a home in the mountains and want a Kurd nation and some oil;
5. The Turks have arbitrated between the two warring tribes of Sunni and Shiite for centuries. For instance, in 1801, the Sunni Wahhabis invaded Iraq, which is very similar to today’s invasion of the ISIL. In Iraq, the Wahhabis inflicted horrible things on the Shiite population that even exceeded today’s barbarisms. In response, the Turks nearly wiped out the Saudi Sunni Wahhabis.
In the Wall Street Journal, a recent article (10) relates the current form of barbarisms being practiced by the ISIL in Iraq. In the front page article it reports that in Mosul which is ISIL occupied territory, that
“Stonings to death for adultery”, and “executions, amputations, lashing in public squares regularly on Fridays.” They urge that all including children should watch.
This war is a local tribal and religious war and the US should not be there. There are no American interests served by being there. When we entered, we did not do so in a manner to win the respect of the Arabs who like to see strength. It is the reason that they behead people. This proves that they are in charge. We are now reaping the results of our leaderless diplomacy of two Secretary of States that are tolerated not admired by the Arabs.
The U.S. now has a problem. We are there and the ISIL have resorted to a seventh century practice of beheading. This is not civilized. It is a throwback to another era. To modern civilization, we now have a rabid animal on our hands – ISIL. What does one do if one faced with a rabid animal? For instance, if a squirrel, dog, fox or a wolf becomes rabid, what does one do? You must kill it. It seems to me that if in fact, the ISIL is beheading reporters and others that disagree with them, then the civilized nations of the world must kill this rabid animal called ISIS or ISIL However, there is one caution. Because of informed analysis of the videos, some people simply do not believe the beheading video. (11) The video can be seen here. If it is a fake as this referenced article states, then our fascist government is trying to get Americans to enter another theater of war without Congressional debate or approval. I note that the second “beheading” of a reporter does not have any videos that I can find on the internet. Infowars reports that the Sotloff Video is controlled and released by the Bradley, Matt. The same group that released the fake Osama Bin Laden videos. (12) Specifically,
“The Group responsible for discovering Steven Sotloff video is an intelligence asset specializing in war on terror propaganda.”
In 2007, SITE, Search for International Terrorist Entities,
provided fake Osama bin Laden videos that were released by the White House. SITE has ties to the John Hopkins School
of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) where Paul Wolfowitz was dean before he left and created the Bush doctrine along with Richard Perle. It was titled, “A Clean Break” and was
prepared for Netanyahu. The study called for (1) the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and (2) waging a proxy war against Assad in Syria.
A second video that no one can see and analyze is very suspicious because no one can see it and the source is suspect. I note that both the John Foley and the Steven Sotloff beheading videos are timed precisely before the Obama ISIS speech on 10 September 2014. Nonetheless, for our purposes in this
article, we assume it is not a fake, the beheading took place, and then this poses a question of what should be done. This is the position that the U.S. has taken.
What is “IS”?
The “IS” is an abbreviation for the Islamic State that that these tribal members want to create in Western Iraq. It is a dream
of creating a Sunni 7thCentury nation run by (12) Sharia law. It is a religious state. Why in western Iraq? Many tribal Sunnis live there; therefore, the ISIL simply says, “Come join us” and by the way, we will pay you well. Their IS Army consists of the Syrian rebels who revolted against the Alawite regime of Syria and the Assad family. It also has many Ba’athists Sunni from the Saddam Hussein’s army who ran the war against the U.S. as well as the resistance movement after we took over the country. These men are now the commanders of this new IS army. Finally, we have jihadists from all over the world who have come “home” to fight for their beliefs of a Sunni Caliphate. The modern leadership of the IS have looted every area that they took over and emptied the banks of hundreds of millions of dollars. The result is that the IS army is well paid and gaining recruits. The scene portrayed in the movie, “Lawrence of Arabia”, where the tribes looted Bagdad comes to mind when one tries to envision what is going on.
The conclusion that one quickly reaches about the above situation is that many of the “bad” people are in one place. This composite set defines the rabid animal that must be killed. A 7th century Caliphate does not fit the modern world.
In 2006, the Sunni tribes supported the Ba’athists against the Americans. As a result, the Shiite death squads were turned loose and did the job of killing the Sunnis. The Sunnis soon asked for a deal with the Americans. The press called this “the Sunni awakening”. Now we need another “Sunni awakening” called an “IS awakening”.
Wahhabism and the Islamic State
I am indebted to an excellent article on this subject by Alastair Crooke . You can view his World Post article dated 3 September 2014, here – “You Can’t Understand ISIS If You Don’t Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia”. I will briefly summarize the philosophy of his article so that you can get some idea of what is going on in the Mideast.(13)
The dramatic arrival of Da’ish (ISIS) in Iraq has surprised many in the West. A number have been horrified by its violence and its ability to draw recruits from Sunni youth. Another surprise is the fact that Saudi Arabia kings appear to be indifferent to this threat to their throne. Unfortunately for the U.S., that “indifference” may be faked because the Kings are relying on the 1971 agreement that Nixon and Kissinger put together to price
oil in dollars but in return, the U.S. would provide military protection for the King. Saudi Arabia’s ruling elite are divided. Some applaud ISIS for showing Sunni strength in creating a new Sunni state and applaud the ISIS strict Salafism ideology. Other Saudis are fearful, and recall the history of the revolt against Abd-al Aziz by the Wahhabis (13)
Ikhwani, which nearly imploded Wahhabism and the al-Saud in the late 1920s. These Saudis are disturbed by the radical doctrine of ISIS and are beginning to question a number of Saudi Arabia’s directions. Saudi Split Philosophical Directions
Saudi Arabia’s internal tensions over ISIS can only be understood by recognizing the duality that lies at the core of the Kingdom’s doctrinal makeup that is based on its historical origins. Ibn Saud links one strand to the Saudi identity directly to Muhammad ibn Abd alWahhab who was the founder of Wahhabism and the use of his radical exclusionist puritanism. Prior to alignment with Abd al-Wahhab, Ibn Saud was a minor leader fighting and raiding Bedouin tribes in the deserts of the Nejd.
The second strand to the Saudi identity relates to King Abd-al Aziz’s subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s. In order to influence Britain and America, he curbed Ikhwani (Wahabi) violence by accepting institutionalization of Wahhabi beliefs. As a result, he captured the petrodollar gusher in the 1970s. He used some of the money to channel the Ikhwani evangelizing efforts away from the Saudi Arabia home towards
export — by diffusing a Cultural Revolution, rather than creating a violent revolution throughout the Muslim world. The Mosques in Europe and the U.S. were built with this evangelizing money.
This Arab “cultural revolution” was no docile reformism. It was a revolution based on Abd al-Wahhab’s Jacobin-like hatred for deviations from the pure Muslim religion that he perceived all about him. In Jacobean fashion, he used it as a call to purge Islam of all its heresies and idolatries. This means he killed any non-believers and non-followers. Origin of Abd al-Wahhab’s Views
The American journalist, Steven Coll, described how this austere 14th century scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1791), despised –
“The decorous, arty, tobacco smoking, hashish imbibing, drums
pounding Egyptian and Ottoman nobility who traveled across
Arabia to pray at Mecca.”
In his view, these were not Muslims; they were imposters masquerading as Muslims. Nor, indeed, did he find the behavior of local Bedouin Arabs much better. They aggravated him because they honored saints and by their practice of erecting tombstones. To him, this behavior, Abd al- Wahhab denounced as “bida” — forbidden by
God. Like Taymiyyah before him, Abd al-Wahhab believed that the period of the Prophet Muhammad’s stay in Medina was the ideal period for Muslim society that all true Muslims should aspire to emulate. This is the definition of Salafism.
Taymiyyah had declared war on Shi’ism, Sufism and Greek philosophy. He spoke out, against visiting the grave of the prophet and the celebration of his birthday. He felt such behavior represented imitation of the Christian worship of Jesus as God by his definition – idolatry. The importance of Taymiyyah beliefs is that Abd al- Wahhab assimilated all this teaching, stating that “any doubt or hesitation” on the part of a believer in respect to acknowledging this particular interpretation of Islam should deprive the man of his property and his life.
One of the principles of the Wahabi doctrine was “takfir”, under which Abd al-Wahab could designate fellow Muslims as infidels if their activities in any way encroached on the sovereignty of the King. Abd al-Wahhab denounced all Muslims who honored the
dead, saints, or angels. Wahhabi Islam’s other beliefs are that there is a ban on any prayer to saints and dead loved ones, pilgrimages to tombs and special mosques, religious festivals celebrating saints, the honoring of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad’s birthday, and even prohibits the use of gravestones when burying the dead. In short,
any Christian practices. To give a clear idea of his radical 7th
century beliefs, ponder the following quotation.
“Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated.”
Abd al-Wahhab demanded conformity. He asserted that all Muslims must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a Caliph, if there were one). Those who would not conform to this view should be killed. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite, Sufis and other Muslim denominations. Abd al-Wahhab did not consider any of these Muslim sects to be Muslim at all.
Observe that up to this point, Wahhabism and ISIS have the same beliefs. The ISIS rift emerges later from the subsequent institutionalization of Muhammad ibn Abd alWahhab’s “three doctrines of (1) One Ruler (king), (2) One Authority (Wahhabism), (3)
One Mosque (control of the Word)”. Now the difference – – – ISIS denies the three pillars on which the whole of Sunni authority presently rests. This makes ISIS, which in all other respects conforms, to Wahhabism, a deep threat to Saudi Arabia. The King is not the one ruler of the Arabs and he is not the Caliph. The ISIL want to establish an ISIS state with a Caliph who would not be loyal to any King. This is a religious state.
Brief History 1741-1818
Abd al-Wahhab’s advocacy of his radical views led to his expulsion from his own town –and in 1741, he finally found refuge under the protection of Ibn Saud and his tribe. What Ibn Saud perceived in Abd al-Wahhab’s novel teaching was a weapon or the means to overturn Arab tradition and convention. It was his path to seizing power. His strategy was to instill fear and bring peoples who he conquered into submission. He could continue raiding neighbors and robbing them of their possessions as he had in the past. Now, he could do it with the idea of martyrdom under the banner of jihad. It granted
immediate entry into paradise. They conquered inhabitants of the peninsula and gave a limited time for conversion. By 1790, the Alliance controlled most of the Arabian Peninsula and they repeatedly raided Medina, Syria and Iraq. Their strategy was simple and used by the ISIS today. Bring conquered people into submission. They ruled by fear. In 1801, they attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq and massacred at least 5,000 men, women and children. These were Shiite Muslims. They destroyed all their shrines including that of the Imam Hussein, the grandson of Prophet Muhammad.
In 1803, Abdul Aziz then entered the Holy City of Mecca, which surrendered under the impact and threat of terror. This also happened in Medina. Abd al-Wahhab’s followers demolished historical monuments and all the tombs and shrines in their midst. By the end, they had destroyed centuries of Islamic architecture near the Grand Mosque. In November of 1803, a Shiite assassin killed King Abdul Aziz (revenge for the massacre at Karbala). His son, Saud bins Abd al Aziz, succeeded him and continued the conquest of Arabia. However, the Turkish Ottoman rulers could no longer just sit back and watch as their empire was devoured piece by piece. In 1812, the Ottoman army reconquered Medina, Jeddah and Mecca. In 1814, Saud bin Abd al Aziz died of fever. The Ottomans, however, took his son Abdullah bin Saud, to Istanbul, where he
was tortured and executed. A visitor to Istanbul reported, “Seeing him humiliated in the streets of Istanbul for three days, then hanged and beheaded, his severed head fired from a canon, and his heart cut out and impaled on his body”. These people are brutal and barbaric.
In 1815, the Egyptians while acting on the Ottoman’s behalf crushed the Wahhabi forces. In 1818, the Ottomans captured and destroyed the Wahhabi capital of Dariyah. The first Saudi state was no more. The few remaining Wahhabis withdrew into the desert to regroup, and there they remained, quiescent for most of the 19th century. The message here is that Wahhabi believers must be crushed by killing. They do not use reason and will not negotiate. These are zealots of the first order of magnitude.
The ISIS and History
The founders of ISIS remember their origin and their “glory”. The 18th century Wahhabism roared back into life when the Ottoman Empire collapsed amongst the chaos of World War I. We just did not take cognizance of this fact. In the 1900s, the politically astute Abd-al Aziz, who, launched the Saudi “Ikhwan” in the spirit of Abd-al Wahhab and united the Bedouin tribes, led the Al Saud. The Ikhwan
was a reincarnation of the committed armed Wahhabist “moralists” who almost succeeded in seizing Arabia in the early 1800s. In the same manner as earlier, the Ikhwan again succeeded in capturing Mecca, Medina and Jeddah between 1914 and 1926. Abd-al Aziz, however, began to feel his wider interests threatened by the
revolutionary “Jacobinism” exhibited by the Ikhwan. The Ikhwan revolted — leading to a civil war that lasted until the 1930s, when the King had them put down by killing all of them. Again, the message is that the Wahhabi must be crushed. They do not negotiate.
For this king, (Abd-al Aziz), oil was being discovered in the peninsula and it was changing everything. Britain and America were courting Abd-al Aziz, but at the same time were inclined to support Sharif Husain as the only legitimate ruler of Arabia. The Saudis needed to develop a more sophisticated diplomatic posture. As a result, Wahhabism was forcefully changed from a movement of revolutionary jihad and theological takfiri purification, to a movement of conservative social, political, theological, and religious da’wa (Islamic call). Most importantly, it was used to justify the institution that upholds loyalty to the royal Saudi family and the King’s absolute power.
Oil Wealth and Wahhabism
With oil wealth, the Saudi goals were to spread Wahhabism throughout the Muslim World, thereby reducing the number of forms of Muslim beliefs into a single creed. Billions of dollars were — and continue to be — invested in this soft power of ideas.
Westerners looked at the Kingdom and its wealth and by the apparent modernization. They chose to presume that the Kingdom was bending to modern life — and that the management of Sunni Islam would bend the Kingdom to modern life. On the one hand,ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is deeply radical since it rejects the King as the leader.
However, in spite of the King’s efforts, the Saudi Ikhwan approach to Islam did not die in the 1930s. It retreated, but it maintained its hold over parts of the system. As a result, you have the duality that we observe today in the Saudi attitude towards ISIS. On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is ultra-radical. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahhabism.
The important point to note is that the ISIS is a “post-Medina” movement: it looks to the actions of the first two Caliphs, rather than the Prophet Muhammad himself, as a source of emulation, and it forcefully denies the Saudis’ claim of authority to rule.
As the Saudi monarchy blossomed in the oil age the “Ikhwan approach” enjoyed — and still enjoys — the support of many prominent men and women and sheikhs. As one example, Osama bin Laden was the representative of a late flowering of this Ikhwani approach. Who are they? The Muslim Brotherhood (Iqwan Muslimeen), the oldest and largest Islamist group was founded in Egypt in 1928. The Ikhwan have affiliates in 70 countries. The Muslim Brotherhood’s goal is a global “caliphate” ruled by Islamic law. A caliph is a successor to the Prophet Mohammed, a sort of Pope and king combined.
A significant difference between the Shiite and the Sunni beliefs center about who can become a Caliph. According to the Shīʿites, who call the supreme office the “imamate”, or leadership, no caliph is
legitimate unless he is a lineal descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. The Sunnis insist that the office belongs to the tribe of Quraysh (Koreish), to which Muhammad himself belonged.
Interestingly, for many Arabs today, ISIS undermining of the legitimacy of the King’s legitimacy is not seen to be problematic, but rather a return to the true origins of the Saudi-Wahhab roots.
In the collaborative management of the region by the Saudis and the West in pursuit of their many goals, western politicians have highlighted their chosen reading of wealth and modernism of Saudi but they chose to ignore the Wahhabist impulse.
As a result, the radical Islamist movement was perceived by Western intelligence services as being effective in toppling the USSR in Afghanistan — and in combating out-of-favor Middle Eastern leaders and states. However, they ignored the basic beliefs of the Ikhwan movement.
Many were surprised when Prince Bandar’s Saudi Western mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad suddenly Shiite allies. We should not be surprised. We know little about Wahhabism. The Sunni extremists called ISIL do not believe that the Shias are Muslim. Why should one expect that “moderate” insurgents in Syria would become rare? We should never have expected that moderates would evolve in a community that kills anyone that does not accept their beliefs. Simply stated, why could we imagine that a doctrine of “One leader, One
authority, One mosque: submit to it, or be killed” could ever ultimately lead to moderation or tolerance? As the Turks found out in the early 1800s, we will find out there is only one-way for this movement to become controlled. Its followers have to be killed. The U.S. could do it but should they? I do not believe that it should unless we are “suckered” into it by the Saudis and the Europeans. It is more in the interest of the Saudi Kings for them to do it. I doubt that they
will without “urging” from the U.S. The problem is that the U.S. seems to be under the control of “war mongers” in D.C. that only seem to understand one word, “attack” rather than the proper word, “think.”
How Does One Eliminate the ISIL
I got the idea for this approach from the Angelo Codevilla article, Why The Islamic State Must Be Killed and What It Will Take. (14) This goal to be accomplished can be achieved in a three-step process. (1) Cut off the financial support. (2) Use air strikes to eliminate all the military strategic targets. (3) Let the Iraqi death squads kill the ISIS on the ground. In addition, only if necessary, use U.S. Special Forces to clean up those that are escaping. This is a Genghis Khan approach but is necessary against a rabid animal.
Now let us examine this approach. First, Cut off the supplies feeding the IS army and tell them to stop selling the ISIS oil. Use US diplomacy to shut all arms support from the nation of Turkey. This is where the supply lines stem from. The ISIS sells its oil through Turkey. Inform Turkey, Qatar, and Islamic world, that the U.S. will have zero economic dealings with Turkey or any other country that has dealings with the IS. All supplies and armaments are coming from Turkey today and the current policy of Turkey appears to be they will support anything that is Muslim. Second, get the Saudi’s and the Jordanian Air Force to strike the military targets. The Saudis’ have 300 F-15s and
they should attack the ISIL because the IS state is a direct threat to the Saudi Kingdom. U.S. AWAACs could be used to direct the attacks. The U.S should tell the Saudis to “fight” and use their Air Force or we will stop supplying parts and trainers for their Air Force. There is no need for the U.S. to be involved with ground troops. Use of ground forces would confuse and redirect the hatred to the U.S. Third, alert the Iraq government to unloose the Shiite death squads to kill the Sunni ISIL rebels. Not many will be left after the Shiite death squads enter into the battle. The net result of this would be that the evil people would be annihilated and peace would return to the Mideast. The country borders of Iraq and Syria would again be secure because they would mostly contain one tribe. Iraq would be Shiite. The Kurds may finally get their nation. ISIL and the IS dream state would be dead – – – for a period. Saudi Arabia would be Sunni. Some will say, “This is too harsh”. To that I say, “Is it worse than beheading?” Is it worse than living under Sharia law with women degradation and with Religious judges? Further, if nothing is done, then the general slaughter continues and eventually the cancer of ISIL will attack Europe and come across the sea to attack America. It is more rational to kill it
now when it is concentrated in a small area and we can use “alliance” resources to do the job.
10 September 2014 – The President’s Address
This is written before the 10 September address. I don’t know what he will say. On 9 September 2014, there was an invited editorial by Ryan Crocker in the Wall Street Journal that gives a clue. (15) The Journal usually telegraphs a message ahead of a presidential address. Mr. Crocker is Dean of the Bush School of Government at Texas A & M. The two parties generally coordinate their positions with one another since they have the same fascist masters. In this instance, the Military Industrial Complex and the Zionist / Israel banking complex. I realize that this is a strong statement but I believe the record supports this view. Now, let’s us see what he proposes.
First, he proposes that the “Qaeda Versions 6” is a threat. It is a threat, but in my belief, it is a threat to the King of Saudi Arabia and to Israel more than to the U.S. However, in 1971, the U.S. committed to protect the King for keeping oil sold only in dollars. Mr. Crocker further states that they are better organized, equipped, funded, experienced and that since 6,000 carry U.S. passports they could come to U.S. and threaten the U.S. They could not do this if we did not let them back because they were fighting with an enemy of the U.S. and thus have lost their rights to citizenship. Thus, I conclude that this article is a propaganda piece. This is briefly, what he proposes.
1) Airstrikes will have to be increased. Note: He assumes that the U.S. will fly these missions. When we do, we violate Iraq and Syrian airspace – acts of war. In addition, this should require a Senate Congressional mandate. I doubt if he will ask for that.
2) ISIS targets in Syria will have to be struck also. Note: We violate Syria airspace.
3) Special Forces ground troops will have to be added to “loyal” ground troops. Note: This implies that some Iraq forces (Sunni dominated) will not be “loyal” to Iraq bur rather to ISIS.
4) Special Forces ground troops will have to be added in Syria as well. Presumably, these forces will be used to train new recruits that will fight Assad as well as the ISIS.
5) We must continue high-level political effort to get the Iraqis to form an “inclusive” government of Sunni, Iraqi and Kurds. Note this implies that they would have to be loyal to the State of Iraq over their tribal loyalties. This would be a first.
6) Finally, we must use American “leadership” to insure that this effort is not seen as a Muslim-Christian confrontation. This “president personally must step forward and show the world that we can and will move decisively, collectively and immediately.” Note: the White House could have drafted
this policy. I highlighted “personally” since it should have said “the U.S.” if the man sitting in office were truly Presidential.
The President would have to subjugate the fact that this is a Christian nation in order to accomplish this goal. The net result of this type of strategy would be the furtherance of the apparent White House and fascist driven policies in the Mideast. The U.S. would lose treasure and people but the military industrial complex and banker complex would
cheer. The Democratic Party, the bankers and the military industrial complex would cheer since it is a continuance of spending. The establishment needs a war as cover for the impending financial collapse.
The President’s Speech
President Obama’s national address was clear and followed the six points above almost verbatim. Specifically, after stating the nonsense, “ISIL is not Islamic” (Point 6 above), he made four of the above six points.
1. The U.S. would bomb ISIL targets in Iraq and Syria. (1 and 2 above)
2. The U.S. would support troops on the ground that are fighting. (3 and 4 above).
3. Increase counter terrorism to prevent ISIL attacks. (3 and 4 above).
4. Provide humanitarian assistance to civilians. (Point 6 above).
Note that he did not mention that the number one nation threatened by ISIL and ISIS is Israel and the number two nation threatened is Saudi Arabia. This paper proposes an approach to killing the ISIL and thereby eliminating ISIS as a “rabid wolf”. The paper’s approach is to do it with Arab forces not U.S. forces. The President’s approach of doing it with U.S. forces means that the war will continue, expand and eventually U.S. troops will be on the ground.
My conclusions are that:
• The Mideast population is a set of Semite tribes, which include Israel that are in a religious civil war.
• The Sunni dream of a Caliph with both religious and secular power is being reborn in the ISIS / ISIL and being created by the Al Qaeda / ISIL extremist terrorists.
• The ISIS terrorist origin was Afghanistan where the U.S. created it to fight and eliminate Russia. The U.S. was successful but they created a monster. It was reborn in Iraq and called Al Qaeda. The Al Qaeda joined the Syrian terrorists (Sunni) against the Assad (Shiite) and eventually became so purist in their religious beliefs – kill all Jews, all Christians, all Shiite that do not convert and provide no allegiance to the Saudi (Sunni) King – that Al Qaeda threw them out for being too vicious and too purist. They took weapons and went to Iraq.
• The U.S. illegally supplied arms to the Syrian terrorists; coordinated those shipments via Turkish freighters at Turkish ports and directed this operation from Ben Ghazi by Ambassador Stevens, a CIA asset. They covered their actions
with a secret program called “No Footprint”.
• Our President if not Muslim in beliefs is Muslim in support. He does nothing to offend the King of Saudi Arabia. He gets the U.S. to fight the King’s battles for the King.
• John McCain is the “God Father” of the ISIS / ISIL covert movement. (16)
“The real god father of ISIL is U.S. Senator John McCain, their mentor and father figure, the man who has met with them encouraged them, and interceded in getting them money, weapons and military training. . . . Weapons for ISIL are tracked through Turkey, up to the Black Sea ports, traded through transit routes through Georgia and backtracked to arms dealer ties to Israel, the CIA, MI6 and France.”
• The nation of Turkey is critical in the Mideast
o They are Muslim and primarily Sunni.
o They refuse to allow American forces use their bases for troops or aircraft to attack ISIS who are Sunni extremists.
o They have received all of their military weapons and training from the U.S. because they are a NATO country. We have provided these weapons as Foreign Aid.
o Currently, they provide supplies and money to the ISIL. They sell the oil from ISIL that the ISIL has stolen from Irag and then tried to steal from the Kurds. This supplies the ISIL with food, supplies and money to pay their troops and to buy more weapons.
• The Beheadings are possibly Psyops and were performed by intelligence agencies – probably of the U.S. and UK. (17). They are used to inflame the people to “kill” the new enemy and start another war. The Psyops use:
° Very professional camera use, editing software and skills displayed in the videos provided on the first “beheading”.
° Access to the Internet from remote locations is not possible. Internet uploading capabilities, social networking capabilities are used but not detected by any intelligence agency.
° Professional Image Editing Software and Skills
° They know how to cut and splice sections of the images to produce the desired effect of disconnecting a head from a body.
° It is necessary to have a production department to do this editing with multiple camera angles, consistent daylight on their subjects and multiple cameras.
° They edit out any blood using Photoshop drop shadows of the head sitting on a corpse.
° ISIS / ISIL intelligence operations that are outwardly superior to CIA / Mossad.
° They formed quickly and became ISIL overnight with a clear mission to attack Iraq.
° They have hidden faces with British accents and never allow a single ISIL leader to be identified.
° Secrecy – no One knows who ISIS is.
° Secret data bases
° Secret material suppliers – There is an endless supply of Water, Food and Meals coming from Turkey but not admitted to by the intelligence agencies .
° Secret sources of money – Untraceable money and endless spending
° Intelligence services say they cannot identify bank accounts
° Raw bureaucratic power to control information – the second video was removed from the internet. It was provided by the company that supplied false Osama bin Laden videos and acknowledged as a CIA asset. Therefore, it probably is also false.
The conclusion is that the U.S. would be better off following the strategy defined in this paper using Arabian forces against Arabs rather than the one outlined by the President
in is speech. This is true if he were sincerely interested in American citizens. This paper’s approach is to let the Arab tribes fight their own wars
• Saudi Arabia to do the bombing with their 300 F-15s.
• Use stringent sanctions to stop Turkey from their support of ISIL.
• After the bombing, encourage and support the Shiite kill squads to mop up the Sunni ISIL in the same manner as they have in the past.
• Get the Kurds to participate with the Shiites in the cleanup and then possibly reward them with their own state.
The result of this would be the ISIL would be gone and most territorial boundaries would be intact. Further, the remaining Christians and Jews would be safe in the Mideast. Finally, we would avoid an expansion of the war.
1 Hawranek, Joseph. “Analysis of Benghazi Cover Up”, jpfinancialeducation.com,
2 Hawranek, Joseph. Benghazi – Latest Information, Jpfinancialeducation.com,
3 Hawranek, Joseph. “Benghazi Exposure – ‘The Innocence of Muslims’”, jpfinancialeducation.com,
http://money.verticalrising.com/?p=13207Benghazi exposure – Video
4 Hawranek, Joseph. “The Benghazi Cover Up – A Judicial Watch Update”, jpfinancialeducation.com,
5 Hawranek, Joseph. “This is a Twist – 60 Minutes retracts, apologizes, for Benghazi report, CBS says it
was misled by a source.”, jpfinancialeducation.com,
6 Hawranek, Joseph. “Benghazi_60 Minutes_ A Question of Treason?”, jpfinancialeducation.com,
7 Hawranek, Joseph. “An Analysis of a Scandal: Fast and Furious/Benghazi- Gunrunning- A Question of
8 Sources and full transcript: http://scgnews.com/the-covert-origins-of-isis
9 See more at: http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/911–false-flags/the-covert-origins ofisis.html#sthash.wbtfaUfE.dpuf
10. Bradley, Matt. “Cruelty Reigns Inside City Held by Militants” , Wall Street Journal, 28 August 2014, p.1.
11 Varghese, Johnlee. “6 Reasons Why James Foley Beheading Video Could be Fake”, International Business Times (India Edition), 25 August 2014
12. Nimmo, Kurt. “Sotloff Videos Found by Group Responsible for Releasing Fake Obama bin Laden Video” (Group connected to Homeland Security and Government Insiders), 2 September 2014.
13. Crooke, Alastair.”You Can’t Understand ISIS if you Don’t Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia.”,
World Post, 28 August 2014
14. Codevilla, Angelo. Why the Islamic State Must be Killed and What It Will Take, To The Point News, 26 August
15. Crocker, Ryan. “Islamic State is Getting Stronger, and It’s Targeting America”, Wall Street Journal, 9
September 2014, p.A17.
16. Duff, Gordon. “The Real God Father of ISIL is U.S. Senator John McCain,”Before its News, 13 September 2014,
17. Suarez, Bernie. The International Forecaster. “10 Signs That ISIS is a Scripted Psyop.”, 13 September 2014, pp. 6