Origin of ISIS

[Im2Sexy4MyPants]

ISIS made by USA Lol

[reality]

..mm..there are many and varied theories where they came from...which is really irrelevant now anyway

..but I do know where they need to go

..aint got time to watch the vid...sorry

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

Those of us who aren't stupid have no problems understanding it at all.

There never used to be an Al Qaeda (or ISIS) problem in Iraq or Syria before the Americans went warmongering in Iraq.

[reality]

kj.."There never used to be an Al Qaeda (or ISIS) problem in Iraq or Syria before the Americans went warmongering in Iraq."...

...uhhhmmm..

wiki.."Al-Qaeda (/ælˈkaɪdə/ or /ˌælkɑːˈiːdə/; Arabic: القاعدة‎ al-qāʿidah, Arabic: [ælqɑːʕɪdɐ], translation: "The Base", "The Foundation" or "The Fundament" and alternatively spelled al-Qaida, al-Qæda and sometimes al-Qa'ida) is a global militant Islamist organization founded by Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam,[24] and several others,[25] at some point between August 1988[26] and late 1989,[25] with origins traceable to the Arab volunteers who fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s"

[reality]

..is this the start of the free world getting and edge on this scum ....and the possible containment/end of Daesh

DEAR ISIS

Congratulations.

In a period of about three days you’ve completely screwed yourself in every strategic and ideological way imaginable. You’ve motivated frenemies like Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin to huddle together with no pretense and figure out how to end you.


 
You’ve forced Belgium to admit it has a problem. You’ve motivated the Iraqis to start driving you out of its borders. You’ve even made everyone start liking France again. And your historically bad week is just getting started.

The United States is now taking out your oil tankers without regard for collateral damage; there goes your only revenue. France is using its air force to blow up your stronghold as the world cheers it on; no one even knew France had an air force. Putin has given up the identity of your funding sources, and he’s now willing to give up his longstanding protection of Assad in the process. But more than merely motivating the militaries of the world to take out every last trace of you, you’ve done something far worse to yourself: you’ve lost your identity.

World leaders are no longer referring to you as “ISIS” or the “Islamic State” because they’re not willing to let you pretend that your terrorist agenda is in any way connected to Islam. You don’t even get to keep your acronym anymore. Now you’re being referred to as Daesh, a name you hate. We even let the French pick out the name, because they’ve more than earned it this week. Muslim leaders and Muslim rank-and-file around the world despise you, and you’re completely out of allies.


You seem to want World War III. The trouble is, you don’t have the muscle. You don’t even fully control a single nation, and the world has taken out half your assets in a matter of a few days. It’ll take far longer than that to gradually wipe every trace of your existence from the earth, but that’s now inevitable. So thanks, ISIS or Daesh or whatever name we might choose to call you against your will. In these divisive times you’ve somehow managed to unite the entire world.

Congratulations on that.

It seems the world is coming around to the idea that they need to be killed before they kill us.  But turning them into a red vapour is but half the job.  What about all of them that live among us and wait their turn to wage war on our women, children and way of life?

It needs to get worse before it can get better.

 

– Facebook
by Cameron Slater on November 21, 2015 at 5:00pm

[reality]

sexy..."ISIS made by USA Lol"

.... I believe this version more...esp from...‘DAMNED IF IT DOES, DAMNED IF IT DOESN’T’


Did the US and the West create Islamic State?
NOVEMBER 21, 201510:47AM
Lauren McMah
news.com.au

AS THE threat of Islamic extremism looms ever larger in the wake of Islamic State’s terrorist attacks in Paris, conversation has now turned to how exactly we got here.
Middle East watchers are again thumbing through history books to pinpoint the perfect storm of conditions that allowed militant jihadism to flourish and, as we saw last weekend, manifest in merciless terror against the West.
And many of those pundits point the blame squarely at the West itself. They say Western governments — chiefly, the United States — have a dark history of funding and fostering Islamic extremism whenever politically convenient, and now it’s backfiring in a terrible way.
Former US marine scout sniper and staff sergeant Alexander Lemons, who served on three campaigns in Iraq, wrote in Time magazine this week that because of the 2003 US-led invasion, IS was “our monster”.
“Our government picked the winners in Iraq, and our push for the 2005 national elections hastened the civil war from which ISIS grew,” he wrote.
Other commentators fervently deny any culpability by the West in the unjustifiable carnage in places such as Beirut and Paris last week.
But Lemons is just one among many who think IS and its fellow terrorist groups were incubated by years of Western meddling during critical times in the Middle East — and that those chickens are now coming home to roost.


DID THE US CREATE ITS OWN MONSTERS?

It was as recently as 1993 that Osama bin Laden was being hailed by Western media as an “anti-Soviet warrior”.
This is the same man who, eight years and four attacks on US soil later, would become the most hated man in the world, and a figurehead for a new tyranny facing the West.

But in 1993, just after the Afghanistan War, he remained a romantic figure: a wealthy businessman who had fought Soviet forces alongside the mujahideen — the jihadist forefathers of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
“With his high cheekbones, narrow eyes and long brown robe, Mr bin Laden looks every inch the mountain warrior of mujahidin legend,” UK newspaper The Independent wrote in a now-infamous 1993 feature.
“When the history of the Afghan resistance movement is written, Mr bin Laden’s own contribution to the mujahidin — and the indirect result of his training and assistance — may turn out to be a turning point in the recent history of militant fundamentalism.”

The mujahideen had been funded and courted by the US Government. In 1983, they even scored an invite to the Oval Office by US President Ronald Reagan.
“To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple handheld weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom,” Reagan gushed of them.

The Independent newspaper ran this story on Osama bin Laden on December 6, 1993. Picture: imgurSource:imgur
Why the US propped up fringe Islamic extremist groups such as the mujahideen is no stretch of the imagination. The US government, by its own admission, was locked in an ideological battle against communism, which it perceived at that time to be the greatest threat to the world.
In a piece published in news website Salon this week, political writer Ben Norton said the US fanned the flames of militant jihadism, which would come to prove an even greater threat to the world.
He pointed to a speech at the University of Colorado by the late terrorism expert Eqbal Ahmad, who said jihadism had more or less lay dormant for 400 years but was “revived suddenly with the help of the Americans in the 1980s

Dr Ahmad warned that jihadism — and the souring of relations with bin Laden as a result of US troops being stationed in sacred Mecca — would come back to bite the US. He delivered his speech in 1998, three years before September 11.
In his article, Norton argues that US foreign policy created three Frankenstein’s monsters in Iraq: Saddam Hussein, then al-Qaeda, and now IS.
The US-led war in Iraq, he said, “destabilised the entire Middle East, creating the extreme conditions in which militant groups like al-Qaeda spread like wildfire, eventually leading to the emergence of ISIS”.
He’s not the only one to say so. Tapping into an emerging sentiment of self-blame in the US, Tom Engelhardt of The American Empire Project wrote that US-led invasions, occupations, drone campaigns, huge death tolls and displacement of millions of people “added up to a bin Laden dreamscape”.
“They would prove jihadist recruitment tools par excellence,” he said.
“When the US was done, when it had set off the process that led to insurgencies, civil wars, the growth of extremist militias, and the collapse of state structures, it had also guaranteed the rise of something new on Planet Earth: ISIS — as well as of other extremist outfits.”
A US soldier drags part of a toppled bronze statue of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in Tikrit, Iraq, in 2003.
A US soldier drags part of a toppled bronze statue of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in Tikrit, Iraq, in 2003.Source:News Corp Australia

‘YOUR BROTHER CREATED ISIS’
At a town-hall meeting in Nevada in May, Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush was blaming the rise of IS on the Obama administration’s withdrawal of troops from Iraq when he was interrupted by a college student named Ivy Ziedrich.
“Your brother created ISIS,” she yelled out, referring to Jeb’s brother, former US president George W Bush.
She put it to Jeb that the threat of IS was created when the Bush-backed Iraqi coalition authority ousted the Iraqi government, forcing 30,000 members of the military out.
“They had no employment, they had no income, yet they were left with access to all the same arms and weapons,” she said.
While some Middle East watchers put the actual number at much higher than 30,000, they say Ms Ziedrich’s argument was generally on point: jobless, well-trained and very angry former Hussein soldiers did join the insurgency and swell the ranks of IS.
The Washington Post confirmed this in a report in April that said “almost all” the senior members of IS former were Iraqi soldiers ousted with the fall of the Hussein government.
Meanwhile, a declassified secret US intelligence report from 2012, released this year, also seemed to add to the weight of US responsibility for the rise of IS.
The document was heavily redacted but various interpretations suggested it proved either that the US ignored uncanny predictions about the rise of terrorist groups in Syria, such as IS, or entered into a secret alliance to support them against the regime against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Former US president George W Bush at the White House in 2003 after issuing an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein: to flee Iraq in 48 hours or face a US-led invasion.
Former US president George W Bush at the White House in 2003 after issuing an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein: to flee Iraq in 48 hours or face a US-led invasion.Source:AP
Seumas Milne wrote in the The Guardian that while the document didn’t mean the US created IS, “there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of ISIS against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control”.
It doesn’t help the US cause either that wealthy donors from three of its allies in the Gulf — Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait — have been said to have financed the terror organisation, although this was heartily condemned by a US senator this week.
And IS had singled out the US specifically, saying President Barack Obama’s “arrogant foreign policy” was to blame for their executions of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff.


‘DAMNED IF IT DOES, DAMNED IF IT DOESN’T’
But is it fair to blame the US or any Western government for the rise of Islamic extremism and, therefore, IS?
Other experts say to do so overlooks a critical issue: the nature and history of Islamic extremism itself.
Writing in The Conversation last year, counter-terrorism expert Anne Aly said placing blame solely at the feet of Western intervention “ignores other crucial factors that allows extremism to take root and spread”.
Dr Aly wrote that those factors included Islamism as a response to the failure of Arab leaders to deliver meaningful outcomes, political discussion being driven into mosques, the sustained power and wealth of the Arab ruling classes, rapid economic growth in the Gulf states and, finally, cultural erosion and globalisation contributing to a Muslim identity crisis.
“So the current state of affairs in the Middle East is not simply an outcome of Western intervention and the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003,” Dr Aly, an associate professor at Curtin University’s Department of Social Science and International Studies, wrote.
A convoy of IS fighters.
A convoy of IS fighters.Source:Supplied
“Western foreign policy in the region has no doubt influenced the current situation.
“But the conditions for the spread of militant Islamism have come from attempts to deal with the crisis within: a crisis that is as much political in nature as it is religious.”
Denis Dragovic, an Honorary Fellow at the University of Melbourne who also lived in Iraq for three years, told news.com.au the tentacles of IS reached back to the early 1990s in Jordan, much earlier than the US-led invasion in Iraq in 2003.
Other extremist groups are even older, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which dates back to the 1920s in Egypt.
“So this idea that the Americans created or somehow contributed to the creation (of IS) is simply not true,” he said.
“In the 1990s there was this anger in the Middle East against the dictatorial regimes. America wasn’t there at the time — yes, they invaded Iraq in the first Gulf War, but that’s about it.
“The interesting thing is that when you track this organisation (IS), their enemies change. In the 1990s it was dictatorial regimes. America invades Iraq in 2003, and it becomes jihad against Americans and hence they embrace al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Syrian conflict opens up, and they establish a franchise of fighters there.”
Dr Dragovic said IS were driven by a political ideology that sought to shape the world within a 7th century Islamic framework, which was itself a powerful force independent of US meddling.
And while he conceded America’s presence in the Middle East in the early 2000s did facilitate recruitment and propaganda, largely because of the coalition’s failure to successfully help rebuild Iraq, when he lived there between 2003 and 2010 locals were “just as angry at their own community’s failings”.
“Arab society was, in the 12th and 13th centuries, pre-eminent in the world and there’s a real sense of disappointment and of what went wrong,” he said.
Islamic State fighters from a Northern Iraq group called Wilayah Kirkuk in a propaganda video released last week.
Islamic State fighters from a Northern Iraq group called Wilayah Kirkuk in a propaganda video released last week.Source:Supplied
However he did advise that if IS was to be defeated, and peace to Syria restored, the US and other interventionist governments should tread with caution.
Dr Dragovic said only now was the conflict approaching the state of being “ripe for peace”, meaning that many of the various combatants were starting to realise they were unlikely to win, and perhaps needed to negotiate.
Jordan has been tasked with identifying those groups within Syria that might be willing to join ceasefire discussions, and those, such as IS, who will be black-listed.
A unified collective in Syria against IS, Dr Dragovic said, was the best way to defeat the terrorist group.
But he added that when it came to the role of the US, “they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t”.
“There’s a lot of second-guessing, but for every back-seat foreign policy adviser who says we should have done this and we shouldn’t have done that, I can give an example of where exactly that advice had failed,” he said.
“There will also be repercussions for our actions. If we don’t act, which was the case in Syria for many years, there are repercussions. If we do act, as was in the case in Libya, there are repercussions. We are now not acting in Yemen, and there’s going to be a humanitarian disaster there.
“We are talking about acting in Syria and there will be problems and criticisms. But it’s easy for people who have never had to make a foreign policy decision.”

[Im2Sexy4MyPants]

News AU.org = News Corp; Headquarters 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, United States

well that's the big pile of US CIA propaganda hahaha

sure you can fool most people that's because many lack any form of common sense 

i suppose you would believe it's not poor america's fault lol
all the troubles in the middle east have nothing to do with US meddling hahaha 

[reality]

sexy..."i suppose you would believe..."

...and thats the great thing  about living in a free democracy...you can believe anything you want..some people even believe there is a god!

...you dont even need to let the facts get in the way of what you believe

..as is evident in alot of posts from kj and yourself

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

from The Washington Post....

How the United States helped create the Islamic State

The Bush administration's mistakes after the invasion of Iraq helped the militant group rise.

By JUAN COLE | 11:56AM - Monday, November 23, 2015


A member of the Islamic State waves the group’s flag in Raqqa, Syria, last year. — Photograph: Reuters.

DID the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq in 2003 lead to our current crisis over the Islamic State?

The question has been posed baldly in this campaign season, as when a young woman at a campaign rally said to GOP candidate Jeb Bush (using an alternate name for the militant group), “Your brother created ISIL.” It was not so much the invasion itself, however, as the policies implemented afterward that are mainly to blame for Iraq and Syria lying in pieces. What President George W. Bush's administration did was to foster sectarian divisions and create a long-lasting insurgency.

At every point along the way, the Bush administration made choices that exacerbated sectarian tensions in Iraq and set the country on the path to break-up. The assertion by some observers that the country is riven by age-old hatreds, is ahistorical and incorrect. In previous decades, political passions centered on anti-colonialism or big landlordism and socialism. The vacuum of power created by the U.S. dissolution of the secular Baath Party encouraged Iraqi politicians to play on sectarian passions in unprecedented ways. Provoking a violent insurgency was likewise fateful. Once an insurgency comes into being, it typically does not subside for 10 to 15 years.

But Americans have difficulty recognizing their own culpability in the rise of the Islamic State for two reasons. First, the public (and the press) seldom understood or credited Iraqi social forces with the ability to act independently, focusing instead on the U.S. military’s campaigns. Second, Iraq became a football in partisan bickering, with dispassionate analysis abandoned for unsubstantiated blame games.

After the 2003 invasion, Bush administration officials deliberately pushed aside Iraq's Sunni Arabs, who had dominated Saddam Hussein’s regime, and favored a clique of Shiite operatives. The main vehicle of politics in Iraq, the secular-minded but sanguinary Baath Party, which ruled 1968 to 2003, was dissolved. Shiite Bush allies like the late Ahmad Chalabi and Nouri al-Maliki (who would serve as prime minister from 2006 until 2014) formed a “Debaathification Commission” that fired close to 100,000 Sunni Arabs from government jobs, even from teaching school. This was at a time when there were no private-sector jobs. Shiite Baathists went largely untouched.

Bush's viceroy, Paul Bremer, a militant free-marketeer, at the same time dissolved most state-owned factories and threw the economy into a tailspin. Then Bremer dissolved the vaunted Iraqi million-man army, sending officers and troops away with no pensions and no prospects. Unemployment swept the Sunni Arab provinces the way bubonic plague swept medieval Europe.  Idleness reached levels of 70 percent in Sunni Arab areas where insurgencies grew up. In contrast, the Shiite cliques the Americans brought to power made sure to get jobs for their coreligionists in the new government. The Bush administration and its Iraqi allies did everything the opposite of the way Nelson Mandela handled national reconciliation in post-apartheid South Africa. They also got the opposite outcome.

The administration's vindictive targeting of Fallujah after four security contractors were killed in spring of 2004 reduced a proud city to rubble by the following late autumn and alienated Sunni Arabs in other cities, who refused to vote in the January 2005 elections. The resulting parliament was Shiite-dominated, and charged with crafting the constitution, a constitution all the Sunni-majority provinces rejected.

The mistreatment of the Iraqi Sunni Arabs drove many of them into guerrilla war against the United States. Some 50 major cells emerged in the Sunni-majority provinces. One of these, al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, was led by Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian former car thief. It attracted not only the religious-minded Sunnis who perceived a growing joint U.S.-Iran domination of Iraq, but also former Baath officers who knew were Saddam Hussein’s hidden arms depots were located.

After al-Zarqawi was killed in 2006 by an American airstrike, Iraqis took over the leadership of al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia. They created the so-called Islamic State in Iraq, which began holding swaths of territory. Many of the leaders of this group were former Baathist military officers, and some met and networked in Camp Bucca, where the United States warehoused 25,000 suspected insurgents. It is unlikely that these Baathists sincerely embraced Muslim fundamentalism, and many are likely using the Islamic State group in a cynical way to garner public support (an al-Qaeda emissary, after meeting with them, called them “phony snakes” betraying the real jihad).

When, in 2011, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad attacked the youth revolution against him militarily and turned it into a violent insurgency, Islamic State fighters went off to Syria to fight the remaining Baath regime.  The militant group's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, authorized a Syrian branch in 2012, the Support Front (Jabhat al-Nusra). It was manned in part by veteran holy warriors of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, including Syrians who had fought alongside al-Zarqawi. But over time, the Islamic State itself engaged in major operations over in Syria. It soon became apparent that the group is opportunistic: It would let other rebels do the hard fighting against the Syrian army and take territory. The Islamic State, however, would then sweep in and steal that territory away from its putative allies. In 2013, when the organization sought to absorb the Support Front into itself, al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, one of the planners of the 9/11 attacks, ordered Syrian al-Qaeda to break with the Islamic State, which he kicked out of his organization.

The Shiite religious parties that had come to power in Baghdad under American rule were continuing to exclude Sunnis. The Iraqi military came to be dominated by ex-members of Shiite militias, such as the Badr Corps originally founded among expatriates in Iran.  In 2011 when youth protests broke out in Mosul and Fallujah, al-Maliki ordered them brutally repressed, ending any hope Sunnis had for political reform and inclusion. Having taken rural al-Raqqa province in Syria in 2013 and 2014, Daesh began intriguing with Sunni urban elites back in Iraq, in cities such as Mosul.

In June 2014, the world was startled when Sunni Mosul rose up against the largely Shiite Iraqi army. Crowds attacked police and troops and paved the way for Islamic State fighters to come into the city from Syria.  Local Sunni Arab elites, sick of being marginalized and humiliated by Shiite Baghdad, decided they would risk an alliance with the Islamic State. The corrupt Iraqi Army could have held Mosul by simply standing firm. Both officers and their men ran away and delivered it into the hands of the militant group, which later extended its sway to 40 percent of Iraqi territory (but only perhaps 10 percent of its population).

Had the United States put its full effort into rolling up al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, instead of slighting that theater in favor of concentrating on Iraq, the organization might have been effectively destroyed in 2001 and 2002. Instead, by occupying Iraq the Bush administration gave a whole new generation of angry young men a cause to fight in and bestowed on al-Qaeda a new lease on life. Had the Bush administration not destroyed the Iraqi state and its army, these local institutions could have forestalled the rise of an al-Qaeda insurgency. That insurgency would never have learned tactics from the Marines it fought in Iraq, nor developed networks for munitions acquisition.

Without an organized, well-funded and experienced insurgency in Iraq that could be exported across the border into Syria, money and arms would not have flowed so easily to the hard line of the hard line among rebels in that country. The Free Syrian Army might have been able to hold together as a loose alliance of secular-minded Sunni Arabs with moderate Muslim Brotherhood fighters. Instead, the extremists, hardened al-Qaeda and other hard line veterans of the Iraq War, outflanked the FSA in Syria. The Bush administration's patent favoritism toward Shiite religious parties and marginalization of the Sunni Arabs had created a powerful constituency for the Islamic State in Iraq.

Why Bush chose sectarian favoritism over South Africa-style reconciliation remains mysterious. The odd conviction among some politicians that a longer or more brutal American occupation of Iraq could have forestalled the rise of the Islamic State betrays a profound misunderstanding of the actual dynamics. The U.S. occupation created the conditions under which the group flourished.

• Juan Cole is Richard P. Mitchell collegiate professor of history at the University of Michigan.

• JUAN COLE

__________________________________________________________________________

Read more on this topic:

 • The Islamic State's foreign policy may be as terrifying as its domestic policy

 • The hidden hand behind the Islamic State? Saddam Hussein's.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/23/how-the-united-states-helped-create-the-islamic-state

[Im2Sexy4MyPants]

Al Qaeda and ISIS: These so-called “Islamic True Believers” are really Thugs on Drugs!

Fighters are fueled by Captagon [schedule 1 Amphetamine/FFenethyline], Not the Holy Koran.
 When the narrative is too perfect, like the nonsense that ISIS and Al Qaeda have been espousing about the Holy Book, The Koran; and it’s subsequent influence on their terrorism - as usual, it’s all really about sex, drugs and rock’n roll.


 We western infidels [non-believers] must realize that most of these punks are fueled on Captagon, a Schedule I amphetamine-like pill which was used in the USA in the early 1960’s for such disorders as narcolepsy, depression and hyperactivity. It’s generic formula, Fenethylline, was so addictive that it was banned from use in the USA and most of the enlightened countries around the world in the 1980’s.
 Guess which countries have the highest use now?
 That’s right!
 The ones that represent the most extreme version of Islam, both Saudi Arabia and Syria [ISIS/Al Qaeda], are the prime sites for manufacturing this addictive drug which makes kids feel both euphoric and invincible. In fact, Saudi Arabia has such a severe problem, thanks to their inept decadence that the manufacturing center has been shifted into Syria. This poor excuse of a country, Saudi Arabia, has an annual addiction rate of 40,000-50,000 people going through rehab for Captagon.


In Syria, where there is no longer a country, almost every wannabe terrorist has gotten high—before, during, and after—one of their so-called ‘Holy Wars’ on CAPTAGON!
 How do I know?
 From interviews of these punks who actually boast about their using this medical crutch. In other words, it’s not enough to believe in the teachings of Mohammed or Sharia Law; these young hoodlums have to get high in order to perform anything other than slobbering over their clothes [including basic sexual functions]. That’s right, they are sexually impotent.
 These ‘Holy Warriors’ who have been killing at will; really are the true Infidels of Islam. Pious observers know that drugs like –Fenethylline-- which create an intense artificial euphoria are specifically forbidden in the Holy Koran. I guess these believers know this but don’t really care. It appears that we have a wave of terror created in the Holy Book of Amphetamines.


Or perhaps these so-called martyrs true book of worship is the Physician’s Desk Reference [PDR] from which they can quote verbatim the characteristic euphoria and sense of invincibility that they feel during the terrorist attacks; as well as, the common side-effects—nausea; vomiting; sleeplessness; and cardiac arrhythmias that occur with Captagon.
 It’s a disgrace to ISLAM that a group of heroin/ Amphetamine street thugs with past criminal histories are recruited into the cadre of the holy warriors or the Syrian “Assassins”.  In Judaism, the Sicario was the prime defender/killer on behalf of The Holy Temple of Jerusalem. He was forbidden to take any artificial stimulants.
 Unfortunately, former American prisoners who are leading this so-called Holy War have been severely compromised by our CIA when they were in prison. Namely, both the so-called brain of ISIS or DAESH—Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—and the muscle, former Colonel in Sadam Hussein’s Army -- Samin al- Khlifauic or AKA his nickname-Haji Bakr are both highly compromised operatives of the CIA and MI. Neither one has been able to operate without the covert assistance of the Western Powers through Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar.



 Islam is really on a path of self-destruction fueled primarily by drugs hiding within a palaver of nonsensical ideology which has no correspondence to reality or the rich cultural history of Islam. We have a sham religious crusade hijacked by FENETHYLINE ….or, better known in the west, as Captagon. Syria: you have exported much violence, refugees, and now illegal drugs which are sold in the overseas markets [Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Jordan, et. al.] in order to finance one of the greatest scams in Muslim History—ISIS, Al Qaeda and Terrorism in the name of the Holy Book.  Talk about a corrupted culture that is doomed.

http://pieczenik.blogspot.co.nz/