Uk, US, and Isreal funds and provides intelligence to ISIS

[howlingwolfpaw]

What are western people doing over there helping ISIS?

http://yournewswire.com/russia-kill-us-british-israeli-troops-training-isis/

Why is the US so threatened by Russia stopping ISIS?

http://yournewswire.com/putin-unleashes-doomsday-fury-on-isis-obama-prepares-100000-troops/

Why is the US bombing the Syrian army to help ISIS?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-assad-us-air-strikes-intentional-a7322901.html

to me, ISIS is a proxy army for a proxy war, being funded, supported with intelligence and air strikes to further the agenda of regime change in the middle east. If that is the case then the people behind it are responsible for all the attacks in France (that wants to recognize Palestine as a state) and more.

[howlingwolfpaw]

Terrorism, the new business model for making billions.

http://www.anonews.co/cia-agent-terror/

[knusch]

What are western people doing over there helping ISIS?

quit a number of ppl fighting for ISIS r from western countries. It is simply the next logically thing... once u got bored playin cod u wanna try the real thing.

Why is the US so threatened by Russia stopping ISIS?

USA just jealous that it doesnt have such a strong leader as russia does..
[spoiler=spoiler]YET? [/spoiler]

Why is the US bombing the Syrian army to help ISIS?

Why would any tree hugging hippie vote for Jill Stein to help Trump become president?

[momuuu]

Jet fuel cant melt steel beams
The earth is flat
Music sounds better at holy frequencies
IS is a pawn of the usa

[Vinyanyérë]

I'm glad that we're posting high quality news sources like Your News Wire here.

Your News Wire has shown me many things, including that global warming's not real, vaccines cause autism and the truth is being covered up, chemtrails are real (I bet they burn hot enough to melt steel beams, by the way), Hitler escaped from Germany, Princess Diana was murdered, some childrens' souls come from other planets, Earth is ruled by conservative aliens (not regular aliens, mind you, conservative aliens), thermodynamics is wrong, smoking prevents lung cancer, the Rothschilds control everything, Diablo III is more real than you think, the end is coming, pumpkin spice lattes are toxic, everything you suspect about the Illuminati is true, 2242 - 2016 = 26 and Bernie Sanders will be President (I certainly never stopped believing), and at least one presidential candidate is going to be assassinated in the next six days.

Without Your News Wire I would be completely lost.

[Dolan]

I doubt the US supports ISIS directly. But indirectly it's possible. Let me explain.

The USA is trying to remove Assad from power in a very complicated theater of war.

On one side there are pro-Assad forces: the Syrian Armed Forces (SAF), Russia, Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Belarus, Hezbollah, Palestine Liberation Army etc etc etc.

Another side to this conflict is the "democratic opposition", a sparse group of forces which are anti-Assad: Free Syrian Army, Free Iraqi Army, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc etc etc with support (money, weapons) from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, USA, France, Turkey.

In the north of Syria and Iraq, there are forces fighting for the independence of Rojava (Western Kurdistan): this is a very diverse group gathered under the banner of the Syrian Democratic Council, which is not made only of Kurds fighting for a country, but several other ethnic groups, like Iraqi, Circassians, Arabs, Assyrians, Turkmen. They are part of the anti-Assad front, but they are not friends with the democratic opposition, as far as I know, they are fighting independently from them and have different interests (territorial).

The fourth side in this conflict is ISIS/ISIL/IS, which is also anti-Assad but they have altogether different interests compared to the other groups. They want to conquer territories from every possible Muslim country, in order to grow the influence and power of their self-proclaimed calliphate. They are also Sunnites, so that's one of the reasons why they can only be against Assad who is an Alawite, a fringe school of Shiia Islam. According to ISIS, all Shiia are apostates (murtadd) and they need to be killed.

There are also other independent groups, like Al-Nusra (former Al-Qaeda branch which supposedly "split" in order to avoid getting bombed by the Western Allies) and the Islamic front. Both of these have been fighting both against Assad and against ISIS. Rumours are the Qatari and some Saudis may support al-Nusra. The Islamic front is supported by Saudis. Jaish al-Fatah, another group is supported by Saudis and Turkey. The relations between all these groups are not exactly friendly. They have occasionaly clashed and they have been fighting both against Assad and ISIS.
Occasionally some al-Nusra factions have cooperated with some ISIS factions too, but they are largely considered enemies.

This is a very simplified picture of the forces involved in this conflict. There is a myriad of forces which may fight either for or against Assad or may have their own interest in the region and want to profit from a potential collapse of Syria into smaller territories.

So what is USA's role in this complicated civil war?

Things have changed a lot since the start of the war. Initially, the USA provided funds and weapons to basically many of these forces which claimed to be anti-Assad and part of the opposition. So, in the beginning even ISIS got USA support. Later on, as the conflict evolved, it became clear that ISIS was too anti-Western and involved in terror attacks to be a partner of the Western Allies. So the USA can't realistically be blamed for supporting ISIS at some point. If you want to blame the USA, you have to blame them for the entire operation of funding an armed opposition to Assad and inciting to civil war, after Assad won the last elections. Some people, including me, believe Assad should have been left in power, just like Saddam in Iraq (and Gaddafi in Lybia), because their countries could only be stable under authoritarian regimes. But all this is water under the bridge at this point and it serves no purpose to debate it anymore.

Since Russia has gotten involved in the conflict, USA has a dilemma. One one hand, they want the war to last as long as possible, making sure this will either strain the already-weakened (by economic embargo) Russian economy or this will force Russians to stop getting involved directly in Syria, because they can't support the costs of military operations in the region (they don't have any air bases, like the US and Nato in the area, so their planes had to actually travel all the way from Moscow to conduct aistrikes).

So, the USA may actually play this conflict in such a way as to make sure it doesn't end too soon. As long as they make sure Assad doesn't win and the opposition forces and other anti-Assad forces don't lose, the USA doesn't have to do much directly. All they have to do is maybe send weapons to the "democratic forces" and maybe conduct a few airstrikes from time to time to prove they are still fighting ISIS. They cannot openly and directly attack Assad, though, since that would be pretty much a declaration of war to Russia. So the USA is in a complicated situation, in which Russia is asking them to help kill anti-Assad forces, like ISIS and al-Nusra, but the US is thinking: "why would we kill them? If we kill them, who is gonna fight Assad directly?".

So that is the reason why the US needs to make sure all those anti-Assad forces keep their motivation and resources to continue advancing on Assad's position or maintain their gains.

See, it's a bit more complicated than Soros is behind them all.

[howlingwolfpaw]

I'm glad that we're posting high quality news sources like Your News Wire here.

Your News Wire has shown me many things, including that global warming's not real, vaccines cause autism and the truth is being covered up, chemtrails are real (I bet they burn hot enough to melt steel beams, by the way), Hitler escaped from Germany, Princess Diana was murdered, some childrens' souls come from other planets, Earth is ruled by conservative aliens (not regular aliens, mind you, conservative aliens), thermodynamics is wrong, smoking prevents lung cancer, the Rothschilds control everything, Diablo III is more real than you think, the end is coming, pumpkin spice lattes are toxic, everything you suspect about the Illuminati is true, 2242 - 2016 = 26 and Bernie Sanders will be President (I certainly never stopped believing), and at least one presidential candidate is going to be assassinated in the next six days.

Without Your News Wire I would be completely lost.

Can you discredit the story and not the page? because I have found it on other sites as well. seems like that site likes to share more controversial stuff, though some of those topics are quite interesting and possibly true in whole or in part.

Its hard to believe any news outlet as they all have agendas and twist on how to present a story and what stories to present. Something like 2000 large news organizations owned by 6 corporations making up the majority of the news outlets.

https://southfront.org/30-foreign-intelligence-officers-israeli-us-turkish-killed-in-missile-attack-in-aleppo-unconfirmed/

[howlingwolfpaw]

I doubt the US supports ISIS directly. But indirectly it's possible. Let me explain.

The USA is trying to remove Assad from power in a very complicated theater of war.

On one side there are pro-Assad forces: the Syrian Armed Forces (SAF), Russia, Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Belarus, Hezbollah, Palestine Liberation Army etc etc etc.

Another side to this conflict is the "democratic opposition", a sparse group of forces which are anti-Assad: Free Syrian Army, Free Iraqi Army, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc etc etc with support (money, weapons) from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, USA, France, Turkey.

In the north of Syria and Iraq, there are forces fighting for the independence of Rojava (Western Kurdistan): this is a very diverse group gathered under the banner of the Syrian Democratic Council, which is not made only of Kurds fighting for a country, but several other ethnic groups, like Iraqi, Circassians, Arabs, Assyrians, Turkmen. They are part of the anti-Assad front, but they are not friends with the democratic opposition, as far as I know, they are fighting independently from them and have different interests (territorial).

The fourth side in this conflict is ISIS/ISIL/IS, which is also anti-Assad but they have altogether different interests compared to the other groups. They want to conquer territories from every possible Muslim country, in order to grow the influence and power of their self-proclaimed calliphate. They are also Sunnites, so that's one of the reasons why they can only be against Assad who is an Alawite, a fringe school of Shiia Islam. According to ISIS, all Shiia are apostates (murtadd) and they need to be killed.

There are also other independent groups, like Al-Nusra (former Al-Qaeda branch which supposedly "split" in order to avoid getting bombed by the Western Allies) and the Islamic front. Both of these have been fighting both against Assad and against ISIS. Rumours are the Qatari and some Saudis may support al-Nusra. The Islamic front is supported by Saudis. Jaish al-Fatah, another group is supported by Saudis and Turkey. The relations between all these groups are not exactly friendly. They have occasionaly clashed and they have been fighting both against Assad and ISIS.
Occasionally some al-Nusra factions have cooperated with some ISIS factions too, but they are largely considered enemies.

This is a very simplified picture of the forces involved in this conflict. There is a myriad of forces which may fight either for or against Assad or may have their own interest in the region and want to profit from a potential collapse of Syria into smaller territories.

So what is USA's role in this complicated civil war?

Things have changed a lot since the start of the war. Initially, the USA provided funds and weapons to basically many of these forces which claimed to be anti-Assad and part of the opposition. So, in the beginning even ISIS got USA support. Later on, as the conflict evolved, it became clear that ISIS was too anti-Western and involved in terror attacks to be a partner of the Western Allies. So the USA can't realistically be blamed for supporting ISIS at some point. If you want to blame the USA, you have to blame them for the entire operation of funding an armed opposition to Assad and inciting to civil war, after Assad won the last elections. Some people, including me, believe Assad should have been left in power, just like Saddam in Iraq (and Gaddafi in Lybia), because their countries could only be stable under authoritarian regimes. But all this is water under the bridge at this point and it serves no purpose to debate it anymore.

Since Russia has gotten involved in the conflict, USA has a dilemma. One one hand, they want the war to last as long as possible, making sure this will either strain the already-weakened (by economic embargo) Russian economy or this will force Russians to stop getting involved directly in Syria, because they can't support the costs of military operations in the region (they don't have any air bases, like the US and Nato in the area, so their planes had to actually travel all the way from Moscow to conduct aistrikes).

So, the USA may actually play this conflict in such a way as to make sure it doesn't end too soon. As long as they make sure Assad doesn't win and the opposition forces and other anti-Assad forces don't lose, the USA doesn't have to do much directly. All they have to do is maybe send weapons to the "democratic forces" and maybe conduct a few airstrikes from time to time to prove they are still fighting ISIS. They cannot openly and directly attack Assad, though, since that would be pretty much a declaration of war to Russia. So the USA is in a complicated situation, in which Russia is asking them to help kill anti-Assad forces, like ISIS and al-Nusra, but the US is thinking: "why would we kill them? If we kill them, who is gonna fight Assad directly?".

So that is the reason why the US needs to make sure all those anti-Assad forces keep their motivation and resources to continue advancing on Assad's position or maintain their gains.

See, it's a bit more complicated than Soros is behind them all.

That's an interesting synopsis I could buy into, but I am sure its much more complex than that driven by money (the ruling financial system of the US dollar as global reserve that is completely fraudulent but being protected by wars to continue the exploitation of all those under its influence)

[Laurence Drake]

Ha, this is the best one I've heard in a while.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[Vinyanyérë]

I'm glad that we're posting high quality news sources like Your News Wire here.

Your News Wire has shown me many things, including that global warming's not real, vaccines cause autism and the truth is being covered up, chemtrails are real (I bet they burn hot enough to melt steel beams, by the way), Hitler escaped from Germany, Princess Diana was murdered, some childrens' souls come from other planets, Earth is ruled by conservative aliens (not regular aliens, mind you, conservative aliens), thermodynamics is wrong, smoking prevents lung cancer, the Rothschilds control everything, Diablo III is more real than you think, the end is coming, pumpkin spice lattes are toxic, everything you suspect about the Illuminati is true, 2242 - 2016 = 26 and Bernie Sanders will be President (I certainly never stopped believing), and at least one presidential candidate is going to be assassinated in the next six days.

Without Your News Wire I would be completely lost.

Can you discredit the story and not the page? because I have found it on other sites as well. seems like that site likes to share more controversial stuff, though some of those topics are quite interesting and possibly true in whole or in part.

Its hard to believe any news outlet as they all have agendas and twist on how to present a story and what stories to present. Something like 2000 large news organizations owned by 6 corporations making up the majority of the news outlets.

https://southfront.org/30-foreign-intelligence-officers-israeli-us-turkish-killed-in-missile-attack-in-aleppo-unconfirmed/

In order to discredit the story I need to discredit what it cites. In order to discredit the citations, I need to discredit what the citations cite. Inevitably, we reach a point where a source says something is true either with no citation or by citing firsthand experience, and in order to discredit what they say the only appropriate response is "what they say isn't true because they're not a reputable source".

In this case, YNW cites AMN and Fars News, both of which are citing Sputnik, which is the deepest I can get. Sputnik is controlled by the Russian government.

Southfront (which also gets their story from AMN and Fars News) points out in their article that Sputnik did not provide photo or video evidence of the report.

Most importantly, as best as I can tell, the "thought to be training ISIS" part that YNW includes is entirely made up by YNW. Neither AMN nor Fars News say anything about it, nor do the snippets of Sputnik that they quote. Sputnik describes the missiles as being fired into the command posts of "terrorists", but does not specifically say ISIS. This is in line with my own research, which indicates that ISIS isn't even in Aleppo, or at least has no significant presence. The terrorists that Sputnik describes, then, could mean virtually any of the opposition forces, which is a pretty wide net of groups.

[Dolan]

Russian and Syrian forces have bombed Aleppo, cutting them off from any water source.

http://www.bbc.com//news//world-middle- ... 005//embed

[deleted_user]

I'm glad that we're posting high quality news sources like Your News Wire here.

Your News Wire has shown me many things, including that global warming's not real, vaccines cause autism and the truth is being covered up, chemtrails are real (I bet they burn hot enough to melt steel beams, by the way), Hitler escaped from Germany, Princess Diana was murdered, some childrens' souls come from other planets, Earth is ruled by conservative aliens (not regular aliens, mind you, conservative aliens), thermodynamics is wrong, smoking prevents lung cancer, the Rothschilds control everything, Diablo III is more real than you think, the end is coming, pumpkin spice lattes are toxic, everything you suspect about the Illuminati is true, 2242 - 2016 = 26 and Bernie Sanders will be President (I certainly never stopped believing), and at least one presidential candidate is going to be assassinated in the next six days.

Without Your News Wire I would be completely lost.

Can you discredit the story and not the page? because I have found it on other sites as well. seems like that site likes to share more controversial stuff, though some of those topics are quite interesting and possibly true in whole or in part.

Its hard to believe any news outlet as they all have agendas and twist on how to present a story and what stories to present. Something like 2000 large news organizations owned by 6 corporations making up the majority of the news outlets.

https://southfront.org/30-foreign-intel ... confirmed/

In order to discredit the story I need to discredit what it cites. In order to discredit the citations, I need to discredit what the citations cite. Inevitably, we reach a point where a source says something is true either with no citation or by citing firsthand experience, and in order to discredit what they say the only appropriate response is "what they say isn't true because they're not a reputable source".

In this case, YNW cites AMN and Fars News, both of which are citing Sputnik, which is the deepest I can get. Sputnik is controlled by the Russian government.

Southfront (which also gets their story from AMN and Fars News) points out in their article that Sputnik did not provide photo or video evidence of the report.

Most importantly, as best as I can tell, the "thought to be training ISIS" part that YNW includes is entirely made up by YNW. Neither AMN nor Fars News say anything about it, nor do the snippets of Sputnik that they quote. Sputnik describes the missiles as being fired into the command posts of "terrorists", but does not specifically say ISIS. This is in line with my own research, which indicates that ISIS isn't even in Aleppo, or at least has no significant presence. The terrorists that Sputnik describes, then, could mean virtually any of the opposition forces, which is a pretty wide net of groups.

imagine doing all this work and not even getting an esoc like for your troubles

[rsy]

One of my favorite things at ESOC is duck destroying conspiracy theorists