TTS DANGEROUSLY DAFT ATLANTIC COUNCIL TWEET OF THE DAY

I must have missed this yesterday, but the TTS Dangerously Daft Atlantic Council Tweet of the Day is this:

MUST READ: A Syria-First Strategy for Defeating ISIS by @FredericHof → https://t.co/4Sq37G9yg0 #Syria #SyriaCrisis … pic.twitter.com/DrSa3Zt4wM

— AtlanticCouncil (@AtlanticCouncil) November 7, 2015

which contains this ridiculous suggestion:

The argument here is, first, that civilian protection in western Syria—where the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad fights for survival—is the mandatory first step toward the negotiated political transition Ignatius deems essential for uprooting ISIS, given how Assad has enabled the group. Second, an American-led coalition, consisting largely of regional and European ground forces, will be required to sweep ISIS from its main Syrian bases in the east. Military victory in Syria, the soft underbelly of ISIS, will leave the group isolated in Iraq— without its Syrian headquarters, oil resources, and lines of communication—thereby turning the tide of battle against ISIS in that country as well.

The particular statement, "given how Assad has enabled the group", places the blame for Islamic State on Assad, who it is claimed allowed Islamic State to rise to show to the west that it would be much better to have him in power rather than Islamic State. This daft suggestion is made in the essay written by David Ignatius, a Washington Post columnist, who is referenced in this Atlantic Council tweet. Ignatius makes this ridiculous suggestion thus:

ISIS played a spoiler’s game in Syria. It moved to Raqqa, an area adjacent to its supply lines into Iraq, and used the city as a kind of logistics base camp for its bigger Iraq operations. Raqqa soon became the “capital” of the “state,” and the destination for thousands of foreign fighters. It prospered in part because it wasn’t bombed by Assad’s air force, which was leveling every other civilian area under rebel control.

You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to understand why Assad allowed ISIS to put down roots: He needed a threat to show the West why his regime’s survival mattered; he needed to demonstrate that there was a worse Syrian face than his own—that of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ISIS’s leader.

But if you read the whole of that essay by Ignatius, so lauded by The Atlantic Council, you will find that something is missing: there is no mention of The Redirection.

For those who are unaware of The Redirection, this was reported by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker Magazine in March 2007. Hersh stated that the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia had agreed that the latter would unleash the worst Jihadis onto Syria, Lebanon and Iran. As I said, this was reported in March 2007...FOUR YEARS BEFORE IT HAPPENED!

But Ignatius also fails to mention the plan revealed by General Wesley Clark, that shortly after 9/11 he was informed of a plan for war and regime change in seven countries in five years. The seven countries were Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Somalia. But by 2007 only two of these countries had experienced war, Iraq and Lebanon, and only Iraq had also experienced regime change, while the target of the war in Lebanon, Hezbollah, actually grew in strength and support as a result of the war by Israel in 2006 (which shows that the plan is Zionist).

The Redirection was a response to the failure of this initial plan.

However, the Jihadis were first unleashed onto Libya under the banner of The Arab Spring, which was just a CIA operation to provide the Jihadis with cover as 'freedom fighters' so that NATO could provide the Jihadis with aid and air cover. The result was war and regime change in another of the seven countries named to Clark.

And after Libya, the Jihadis were smuggled into Syria and were expected to either kill or oust Assad. But by July 2013 the Jihadis were facing defeat, so their sponsor, Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia went to Moscow to issue an ultimatum to Putin: either Putin dumps Assad; or Bandar would unleash hell in Syria. Putin refused. And on 21st August 2013 hell was unleashed in Syria. I believe that the event of 21st August 2013 was a false flag of some kind designed to provoke military action by the NATO/Zionist/Gulf states who were backing the Jihadis.

But my point is this: any 'journalist' who ignores the plan revealed to Clark and the subsequent decision to reboot that plan through the redirection is an asshole and may well be a CIA plant in the media.

So for Ignatius to casually blame the rise of Islamic State on Assad, when we have documented evidence that such an entity was proposed by the US DIA in 2012, when the Kurds told NATO in February 2014 what was happening regarding Islamic State in Syria and NATO did nothing to stop Islamic State then, and now NATO allows Turkey to bomb the shit out of the Kurds as the Kurds fight Islamic State, suggests to me that Ignatius is a plant.

And what is the suggestion from The Atlantic Council?

Only America can be trusted to defeat Islamic State and bring peace and stability to Syria!!

Yet it was the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia who in 2007 decided to fuck Syria up through a proxy force of cutthroat Jihadis!!

WHAT A SICK FUCKING JOKE!!

But what else can we expect from the daft Atlantic Council and their daft tweets?

Daft.

Daft.

Fucking daft.

Dangerously daft.