THE BLOODY PURPOSE OF THE ISLAMIC STATE

Last year a false flag attack occured in Ghouta, Damascus, Syria. First estimates were that 2000 were dead. The NATO media immediately and consistently cried that Assad did it! Assad did it! But not once did they question the logic of such an action, for such an action was precisely what the warmongers wanted. They also never mentioned that the Syrian rebels had chemical weapons, had filmed their experiments with chemical weapons and had placed those films on Youtube, and had issued threats of using their chemical weapons to get what they wanted, again those videos on Youtube. And not only that, their sponsor, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, had warned President Putin of Russia that he would unleash hell on earth in Syria.

That whole sordid episode failed. There was no war on Syria. And soon after that the Syrian Arab Army was easily defeating the Syrian rebels.

So the rebels escaped to Iraq. Their escape was known of in advance in NATO intelligence circles because the Kurds told them in February.

And when the escaping rebels invaded Iraq, sympathetic Sunni officers in the Iraqi Army told their units to stand down, which allowed the escaping rebels to capture military hardware that had been given to the Iraqi Army, which then allowed the rebels to gain more and more territory (and bank accounts and oil wells). These rebels then declared The Islamic State, and to enforce their authority have been butchering and mass murdering civilians and any resistance to them. Kidnapped journalists are allegedly being beheaded on camera. However, and this is crucial, these journalists are American, and a Briton is apparently next. Hostages from other nations had their ransoms paid, and they are alive and well and back with their friends and families. But for some reason, the ransoms of the American and British hostages are not being paid, but their gruesome deaths are being used as a casus belli. So you do the maths...

Talk in NATO war circles is to bomb The Islamic State in Iraq with the authority of the Iraq Government, but not to do the same in Syria.

So it is clear to me that the rebels were allowed to escape to Iraq, were allowed to capture military hardware and bank accounts and natural resources that could not have been given to them otherwise, and now that they have regained strength and resources and become worse than the Devil himself we will bomb them out of Iraq and drive them back into Syria.

But once they are back in Syria, then what?

Once in Syria they can:
1. degrade and possibly defeat the Syrian Arab Army themselves;
2. if not then they will create such a humanitarian catastrophe that Cameron and Obama and Hollande and all the rest of the gaggle of arseholes we call our leaders will demand that we bomb Syria in the name of R2P.

And then after obtaining some kind of UN resolution, once the bombing starts, as in Libya, that resolution will be totally abused and ignored and units of the Syrian military will be bombed leading to the ousting of Assad in one way or another.

This is how Great Britain functions today.

This is what our fathers and grandfathers fought and died in WW2 for.

For MI5 to allow extremist Islamic preachers to preach bloody Jihad on the streets of Great Britain so that young confused, angry Muslims travel to Syria and join al Qaeda and worse, and for British hostages to be beheaded on camera to provoke calls for bombing Iraq and then Syria.

It's gud ere, innit?