Warning

Warning: This site contains images and graphic descriptions of extreme violence and/or its effects. It's not as bad as it could be, but is meant to be shocking. Readers should be 18+ or a mature 17 or so. There is also some foul language occasionally, and potential for general upsetting of comforting conventional wisdom. Please view with discretion.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

"Mr. Pesticide" Part 3: On CW Crimes of Ba'athist Leaders

Mr. Pesticide, Gen. Asaad Al-Zoubi
Part three of four:
2018-19 Comments on CW Crimes of Ba'athist Leaders
September 24, 2019

< Back to Part 2
< part 1

3a) Blessing Saddam's Soul for Halabjah?
As part 2 explained, FSA General Asaad al-Zoubi's made a lot of fairly loony public claims in 2016 comments, during his term heading the negotiating team for the whole Syria opposition in Geneva. Perhaps the most controversial among his comments were those about the Kurdish people, their military forces and statehood aspirations, as covered in part 2. Some of these spurred the Kurdish contingent within the HNC to quit the project just two weeks into talks.

But those weren't his first or last words on the subject. A recent re-iteration of the theme in a twitter message of 16 August, 2019, caused a new stir. As one twitter response put it: “Asaad Alzoubi, one of the Syrian opposition's leader praising Saddam Hussein, because he was killing Kurds by using a chemical gases. Today, Zoubi wants to play the same role by commiting chemical attacks against Syrian Kurds... # example of Syrian negotiator_”

Another criticism doesn't mention anything chemical, but includes a re-tweet of Al-Zoubi's exact words. But that original tweet was "unavailable" before I saw it. Well before. On 17 August (the day after the tweet) someone asked "Has he deleted the tweet or shut down his account?" Presumably, he deleted it in embarrassment by then, with or without a friend's advice. At the time I checked (around 27 August), most of the other tweets at his account were still visible, but that one was gone.

It caused him trouble anyway - his account had already been suspended, as someone noticed on 22 August. I didn't know about that when I first looked a few days later. It must have been down just briefly before he had the decision repealed. But just checking now, it seems he's suspended again (as of Sept. 11, and still on Sept. 24). That's presumably for the same thing, which is probably the Kurd-bashing comments possibly praising CW-genocide. He was banned more firmly, maybe permanently, we might note after more time to review the complaints and his reasons for the brief repeal.

He used to be charged with helping shape the future of a nation - what could stop the fighting, who needs released from jail, who cannot be president, etc. That might have played into the initial repeal ("I was at Geneva, you oafs!"). Now he's not even allowed to air his thoughts on Twitter, a platform often criticized as too lax on hate speech and the like.

Wow. That must have been some misstep I should have a look at it if possible. I asked the resourceful Michael Kobs, who found an archived copy of the tweet (at a link that almost instantly expired on my end). The screen grabs he sent are below with details, original text, and an auto-translation to English. (Kobs tweet)

LBD = PYD, etc. an Arabic-speaking friend helped check the nuances and gave the same gist but no word-for-word, so this is a guessed refinement of the auto-translation. Anything it misses that's significant, someone let me know (comments).
Whenever we uncover the truth about the character of the Kurdish terrorist organization the PYD, it reveals many animals (donkeys who are tired, howling dogs, cockroaches, tints [sounds like some tiny insect?], cockroaches, and many worms). There is no need to use pesticides for these insects.
God bless his soul.

(It's pesticide enough?) for these insects to say the name Saddam, and they quickly disappear. So their appearance always makes us have mercy on Saddam.
God bless his soul.

Halabjah 1988. Al-Zoubi: "God bless (Saddam's) soul"
He might have seen this as lighthearted, proposing as it does NOT gassing people; even if it might seem warranted, to deal with the subhuman pests of the PYD "there is no need to use pesticides for these insects." Simply remind them how Saddam (Hussein?) did that once (Halabja 1988?), and ...the pests will go away? He seems onto something ugly, if not logical.

Following an "attack on social media" Al-Zoubi explained himself in an interview for Arabic-language Zaitun Agency. He says it was a misunderstanding. As he clarifies, Kurdish people in general are brother Syrians, but the PYD militant group - at least - "coordinates with the Syrian regime to thwart the people's revolution. They exploited the revolution of the Syrian people and called for an independent entity ...and committed the crimes of genocide and forced components of the core of our people [meaning some (Arab) Sunni Muslims?]" apparently, to lose their homes (translation is unclear).

Forced relocation in areas PYD and other Kurdish forces take over is credibly reported by Human Rights Watch in Iraq (Nov. 2016), and also in Syria, as reported by The Nation, Feb. 2017. It's considered an act of genocide, which is a continuum, obviously.

The claims were variously denied by Kurdish officials, or explained as a counter-terror measure, and they might point – in Iraq anyway - to forced Arabization of historically Kurdish areas, acts of genocide they were just just “correcting” (so corrective genocide?). The Kurds are no angels, and I'm no expert, but I noted in 2013 some clues their leaders in Iraq at least took advantage of the ISIS situation, perhaps even helping to create it, to enable their Iraqi Kurdistan; they would let some land be shaken from Baghdad's control, blame them for being too sectarian and causing ISIS, then as possible take the land back and keep it. Consider from the HRW report a commander of Kurdish forces in Iraq, reportedly declaring upon conquests in Nineveh governorate “These territories are Kurdistan's now. We will not give them back to the Iraqi army or anybody else.”

Their cause is not that crucial, but they're selectively boosted in the West because, I guess, they can cause grief for to the Syrian and Iraqi governments, because they want their own country, not a caliphate or an emirate. Little wonder there's a long attraction, but this Islamist takeover is quite a sinister thing for the Kurds and their external sponsors to be taking advantage of. They should stand with the nations they're in, and talk degrees of autonomy later. First both ISIS and all those others the HNC had under its umbrella would need to be defeated.

So Al-Zoubi may have a point, or just a pointless, hate-inspired gripe with a near-explanation available. But he never did explain the references to “Saddam” and "pesticide" use, and why that event can be glibly invoked against just the PYD when the attack itself was against primarily civilians. He offered no explanation and also deleted that tweet as if it simply could not be explained – at least within civil bounds. Now, this is/was a professional political operative, heading negotiations on issues of war and peace, justice and morality, etc. - by record of tweets anyway, he says little, and it will be relatively guarded and careful. This kind of comment could mark the edges - things he wouldn't normally say, has to un-say if he slips. I mean, he's not talking about Alawi or Shia people here, but the widely-championed Kurds. we can wonder how wide and deep is the pool of uglier thoughts he's even more careful with?

I can partly endorse the efforts of some French Kurds' effort to sue Gen. Al-Zoubi over this comment. They hope to have him tried in French courts for "apology for war crimes and genocide," punishable by up to five years in prison." (Le-Point) For anyone in the world? As someone who's been accused of apologizing for war crimes, this raises questions for me. But I'd be denying the crime, not smiling about it and waving it in peoples' faces. Their lawyer, Antonin Péchard, found the deleted tweet counted as "provocation to violence." That's debatable, but he cites "a direct and unambiguous allusion to the crimes committed in Iraq in 1988, recognized as genocide before the court in The Hague.” As he decodes it, “the menagerie” - or what I have as “many animals” - “is the Kurdish people.” He actually specifies PYD, not the Kurds at large. But then “Saddam, of course, is Saddam Hussein and "the insecticide is the poison of his chemical weapons," most famously used at Halabjah against a lot of Kurdish people at large, so the meaning of “menagerie” IS pretty dubious.

On a side-note, Saddam Hussein also gassed a lot of Shi'ites in Iran in 1988 and earlier, some background information for Al-Zoubi and other hardcore Sunni fanboys of that Ba'ath party leader. Considering all this and how it plays into the following, I've given al-Zoubi the nickname “Mr. Pesticide.”

3b) Damning Assad's Soul over Douma
So there's some worry about Al-Zoubi's rehtoric inspiring future acts of violence, perhaps even chemical violence. Just from what's seen, that's a stretch. But either way, some of his allies need no encouragement.

The Jaish al-Islam (Army of Islam) of his fellow HNC bargainer Mohammed Alloush is epic in its criminality. They're behind killing off all sort of opponents and critics and the sectarian-based kidnapping of hundreds of civilians at once in December, 2013 at Adra (teamed with Jabhat al-Nusra). They've arrested thousands more from Adra and elsewhere across East Ghouta, military and civilian alike, including women and children. They subjected prisoners to harsh conditions and torture, starvation and slave labor, besides other crimes known and still-unknown.

Some possible JaI crimes involve chemical weapons allegations, two of which we now consider, starting with the Douma incident of 7 April, 2018. This was easily blamed on the Syrian government, triggering the second of two yearly April missile strikes led by US president Trump. Al-Zoubi firmly credits Assad with the attack and considers the attack criminal, not laudable. So he's for all CW attacks, and not even for all those blamed on Ba'ath party leaders. He's more selective than that. The Douma attack was said to kill random Sunni Arabs, not Kurdish or PYD "terrorists." And Assad, for what it's worth, is not a Sunni Muslim like Saddam Hussein was, and gets aid from Iranians instead of gassing them. For whatever mix of reasons, Al-Zoubi does not ask for Assad's soul to be blessed, but labors instead to expand the case for its damnation.

In the 18 months since the Douma incident, serious study has shown the opposition's claims to be fraudulent on every level. The physical evidence is clear to OPCW's suppressed experts, Russia's experts, and independent researchers who show their work: someone manually planted two barely dented chlorine gas cylinders at or beneath unrelated damage from explosive weapons. There are troubling signs the 35 seen victims – mostly women and children - were captives of Jaish Al-Islam, mass-murdered so they could plant some bodies underneath one of those forged scenes and blame Assad. It seem s they were intentionally killed in a gas chamber using an unusual method that left ugly clues still being unraveled. Al-Zoubi's Islamist buddies piled the bodies near water faucets so the residues could be washed off their faces and hair just minutes before the first video – leaving behind dingy rags and one of the respirator masks they probably wore to protect against the fumes still coming off these people during transport (likely in Jaish Al-Islam's fabled tunnel system – a confined space). Visuals below, from my own tweet.

Yes, this was almost surely a false-flag managed massacre by JaI as they finally lost their home base in Douma, and saw their last chance to gas any hostages they'd rather not free, and last chance to have a lot of bodies at once to blame on Assad. They had promised to release some 3,000 detainees as part of the surrender deal, but a lamentable 200 or so ever emerged (AFP). Quite likely some of the missing thousands wound up piled in those photos.

It took a while to see all that, but just one day after, on 8 April, 2018, as most of us were rather hazy, Gen. Asaad al-Zoubi gave an interview to Turkey-based SMART News where he's described only as “a political and military analyst,” revealing a stunning inside view; as the headline sums it up, "Opposition general reveals that Russia and Syrian government prepared toxic gas month before Douma massacre." Considering my interest in the details of the Douma incident, his full explanation is worth some detailed analysis in another post (part 4, forthcoming). But it's worth relating in brief here, for comparison.

Like many, he seemed sure it was Assad's deadly sarin nerve agent that killed people in Douma; "Al-Zoubi assured that the forces used a nerve gas that causes immediate asphyxia, and has a stronger effect than chlorine gas." He or SMART News thought the death toll was at least 85 (which is also noted as the death toll for the Khan Sheikhoun sarin attack a year earlier). But that was “at an early count” that actually grew to ~180 and was later claimed to be 187. Mysteriously, only 42 were ever "verified,” and only chlorine turned up at the location where most of the bodies were found. Simple chlorine should have killed close to zero people, not 42, or 85, or 187. Did Al-Zoubi know about that problem in advance? On day 2, he claimed the chlorine dropped along with the nerve agent instantly erased all signs. But as I'll explain in part 4, this is nonsense.

He claimed to know all about the super-deadly agent that's “similar to sarin” (which seems to mean it was sarin – allegedly – but he'd rather leave some wiggle room?). He says it was specifically brewed for the purpose a month earlier, in full violation of Syria's OPCW obligations, and with the help of three particular Russian officers Al-Zoubi could probably name (but didn't), in a pretty audacious and satanic conspiracy. He claimed to know where the poison was made, when it was moved and where to, including to Dumayr airbase, where people said the CWs were loaded onto helicopters for use on 7 April. He probably failed to mention any of that knowledge over the weeks of alleged preparation because it only appeared in his "information" network - fully formed – just a few hours before this interview.

But despite being total nonsense, the Zoubi narrative might be too well-informed to be an innocent guess. His info was likely provided by the true experts who knew inside details like how no sarin would turn up, as they originally planned. Again, the likely perpetrators are Douma-based Jaish Al-Islam, whose state of defeat might cause logistical failures like their sarin supply getting unexpectedly blown up, for example. Because, again, their political leader was one of Zoubi's contacts from the HNC days. And the victims ... not Kurds or probably any other minority, but the largest portion of a named 35 are seemingly related to a military opponent of JaI: An “FSA” faction called Douma Martyr's Brigade led a tragically failed rebellion against the “Army of Islam” in late 2014. That in turn started a few months after its founder – Mohammed Diab Bakriyeh – was killed “in clashes” with government forces, on the same day an apparent civilian brother of his was killed by random government “shelling.” (see here.) Does that reflect the same growing tensions that led to open rebellion soon after? And does it show Commander Bakriyeh's family was fair game to kill and falsely report the cause of death? The answers could both be yes, and if so, it's quite possible that 11 people named Bakriyeh (plus unclear others related by blood and marriage) would get kidnapped over time, held until the end in 2018, and finished off then rather than set free. If so ...the elaborate story Gen. Al-Zoubi passes on would be fake, and he'd be helping conceal a gross war crime by his allies, bt passing it off as yet another Assad crime. To the intelligent, that would be cause to wonder how often that kind of thing happens.

3c) When Jaish Al-Islam Gasses Kurds
Considering his take on Douma, if Gen. Al-Zoubi's Islamist cohorts ever did gas some Kurds, don't be surprised if he weighs in with dubious but specific "information" blaming Syria and implicating Russia, or Iran, or perhaps ISIS or China.

In fact, I had to check with an attack on the Kurdish-majority Sheikh Maqsoud district of Aleppo, on 7 April, 2016. In this little-understood event, I propose the agent used was not the reported chlorine gas. The agent color is wrong (seen on video, too orange-yellow, and also too lightweight), and the smell might be (described as "strange," not bleach-like). It might have been a nerve agent, going by the reported symptoms (including "convulsions, spasms and vomiting"), and its killing a reported 23 people to an expected zero for chlorine. (gathered sources at ACLOS)
7 April, 2016: Al-Zoubi ally's militia launches "pesticide" against Kurds? 23 died?
(color: increased saturation but same hue = not chlorine (yellow-green))
Note: "Yellow phosphorous material" was also cited as the agent, but that should probably be a sort of burning irritant, not likely fatal (based on some research). Also I've seen before where someone mistranslates “organophosphate” this way to describe a likely sarin attack. Three such cases are listed here: Interestingly, twice before in the same district – shortly before in 2016, 9 March (with the same "yellow" description) and in 2013, 13 April, where 3-4 civilians were listed as killed, later revised to 14. the VDC heard early reports of “white phosphoric material and then other sources said it is (Sarin Gas)" which won the contest. (The same odd weapon involved in Sheikh Maqsoud was used in another event 2 weeks later at Saraqeb, that was verified as having sarin inside.) And 2013, 3-24 Adra, Damascus Suburbs, next to Douma and partly occupied by Jaish Al-Islam, where 2 fighters were reportedly killed and several sickened: "Doctors are describing the chemical weapon used as phosphorus" that otherwise fits the bill of a nerve agent. Spasms are seen, and atropine was an effective treatment. ACLOS None of these reports mentions pinpoint pupils, a key indicator, but otherwise ...

In 2016 anyway, this is not chlorine, nor is it mustard gas, nor that mysterious BZ/Agents 15 phoned in a few times. Is it sarin, or something else not yet identified as a CW used in Syria? Either seems plausible to me. More clarity would be nice. Whatever it is, apparently Jaish Al-Islam has it. Further clues a few paragraphs down suggest they share this access with Al-Qaeda franchise Jabhat Al-Nusra.

In what can only be a coincidental twist, that fatal Aleppo attack was exactly two years before the Douma incident we just considered. So both of these 7 April incidents across the country from each other were probably the work of Douma-based Jaish Al-Islam which, as a coalition, also had external branches, including one in Aleppo. It was they who were fingered for the Sheikh Maqsoud chemical attack, and a statement followed that one of their fighters was in trouble for using "prohibited weapons" there. I found no comments by Gen. Al-Zoubi, but he would surely agree with his chief negotiator Mohammed Alloush, who denied the claims - not as part of the HNC but as the political leader of the likely perpetrators. “This is really a big lie, which is laughable.” He swore JaI had no chemical weapons and if they did, would never use them on "our civilians." Rather, To Sputnik news, Alloush "once again accused Syrian President Bashar Assad of using chemical weapons in the country," if not in this particular case. He explained they only fired regular grad rockets at "our civilians" in Sheikh Maqsoud that day, and someone else must have fired in that toxic gas on the Kurds at the same time. He gives no indication who that would be, and implicitly suggests there was no chemical incident at all. I mean, how else could the situation be “laughable” to kind of guy once charged with heading big talks in Geneva? (Global Security.org)

JaI at large has also claimed the public statements about "forbidden weapons" were misread – they never referred to the CW claims they seemed to refer to, but coincidentally made a public show of reprimanding a fighter for unauthorized modification of GRAD rockets. (The Daily Beast) Maybe he modified them to deliver CW, and it actually was authorized, but just caused to much bad PR. Alloush found the ensuing confusion “laughable,” so maybe that big non-admission is the practical joke it kind of seems like. (ACLOS)

Some context: 5 April the deadliest day yet of indiscriminate terrorist shelling of the Sheikh Maqsoud district. "Saad, a pharmacist, described 5 April as “the bloodiest day the neighbourhood had witnessed”. He said that shelling from armed groups continued for nine hours straight. He added: “We counted at least 15 Hamim rockets and more than 100 mortars. The shells were falling everywhere, it was indiscriminate.” (Amnesty International) Two days later came the deadly "pesticide" - as some might put it - launched on the Kurds there by the group led by Zoubi's chief negotiator.

And following on that were reports of an earlier chemical attack: "Lebanese Hezbollah fighters said that they were also attacked by chemical weapons during the night from Sunday to Monday (April 3/4), when terrorists attacked the settlement of al-Yis in the south of Aleppo." Kurdish YPG sources "confirmed" the claims; "According to the militias, dozens of civilians suffered as a result of the attack," which they blame Turkey for. There's no mention of deaths directly caused by the chemicals. (RIA, Russia) The place is not phonetically obvious, but probably Al-Eis on Wikimapia, the only place south of Aleppo I found with a name that could also be transliterated al-Yis. Arabic: العيس Gtrans pronunciation: aleyisu) It's described as Sunni-majority (and not Kurdish?), well southwest of Aleppo city, about halfway to Saraqeb, but still inside Aleppo province. Other Names: Ash Shaykh Isa. Next-door areas labeled Tell Al-Eis and Jabal Al-Eis.

A Reuters report of 6 April said "the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front … last week attacked and captured a town" south of Aleppo, killing 11 Hezbollah fighters and 43 Syrian soldiers, then "shot down a Syrian warplane on Tuesday (the 5th) and captured its pilot" The town is given as Telat al-Eis - probably meaning the Tel Al-Eis (al-Yis) above with the chemical attack during the Aug. 3-4 conquest. On the 6th, the Reuters story related "intense air strikes in the southern Aleppo area," described as "the fiercest government assault in the area since an agreement to ease the fighting came into effect in February."

The HNC's al-Zoubi "told Reuters the truce was “in danger of ending” due to government violations." He referred to the February deal he apparently had nothing to do with, and seems to mean these new strikes – not the 5 April shelling of Aleppo by his allies, or the 3/4 April gassing and takeover of a town near Aleppo. His only and urgent issue was government retaliation against the designated terrorists of al-Nusra Front. The article notes Nusra (then calling itself Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) was never party to the ceasefire, but "its fighters are deployed near rebel groups that are.”

In fact they often share the exact space with and cooperate with such "good-guy" Islamists. The same article cites a fighter of the Sham Revolutionary Brigades who "said his group had taken part in repelling the attack (on al-Eis), and Shi’ite militias fighting with the government had suffered heavy losses." The Sham Revolutionary Brigades probably was party to the cease-fire and off-limits, despite being embedded with al-Nusra. The ceasefire was said to cover basically everyone but Nusra and ISIS, and these guys in particular were one of the "moderate" Islamist groups in Aleppo province who were vetted and given US TOW anti-tank missiles in 2015 (child-beheaders Nouredin al-Zenki were another such sponsored group - news story)

So in context, the HNC head of delegation implied that even Al-Nusra should be allowed to overrun anywhere and do anything from there, so long as they have some exempted “rebels” tagging along as human shields. A failure by Damascus to recognize that protection would destroy the fragile and ever-so-useful dialog in Geneva. Can we see what a scumbag this guy is? Al-Zoubi denounced only the government's responsive portion of this as harmful to peace. On that basis, he threatened yet again to end talks, and encouraged more terrorist attacks (explicitly on the 17th - see part 1). Any further chemical attacks on Kurdish fighters and civilians, like the one that happened the day after his statement about government violations ... “Mr. Pesticide” would see nothing to complain about, anyway, and in private, he might praise some souls over it.

Friday, September 20, 2019

"Mr. Pesticide" Part 2: The World According to Asaad Al-Zoubi

Gen. Asaad Al-Zoubi, "Mr. Pesticide"
Part two of four: 
The World According to Asaad Al-Zoubi (in 2016)
September 20, 2019

<< Part 1: The Saudis' Man for Scuttling Peace

On searching around now, it seems General Asaad Al-Zoubi made a lot of mainstream news stories during 2016 due to his position as the HNC's head of delegation, compared to none before and very little since. A few more recent statements of interest regarding the Kurds and chemical weapons are covered in parts 3 and 4, but first this overview of 2016 comments. Just in those limelight months, this unhinged conspiracy theorist promoted at least the following dubious, false, and troubling claims to support his and the HNC's tough anti-Assad bargaining stance.

* March: The Assad government was using "fatally dangerous" North Korean mercenaries to crush the Syrian peoples' movement. (UPI, Anadolu Al-Arabiya)

* October: “Brigadier Asaad Al Zoubi” said in an interview with Sky News Arabia in Riyadh: "There are 2 types of soldiers who are now blocking the city of Allepo. First is the Assad Shia regime forces, and the second is a mercenary army consisting of the Russian military, Iranian Shia, Palestinian mercenaries and Nujaba militia from Iraq," He then explained how it was the latter group of foreign “mercenaries” and not the Syrian Arab Army as claimed, leading the re-conquest of eastern Aleppo city. This suggests, as opposition hacks often do, that Syria's Sunnis majority does not support the government, except via fighting under compulsion with the "Shia regime" in the SAA. (translated from EraMuslim, Indonesia, October 2016)

It should be noted president Assad is an Alawite, said to lead an “Alawite regime” he and most Syrians would just call Syrian. Oh, and secular. Further, while Alawism is an offshoot of Shi'ism, Alwaites have tried to avoid the Shi'ite label and forge their own identity. This common display by certain Sunnis of "seeing through that ruse" and calling it Shia suggests they're keyed into a troublingly widespread mindset – they see a global satanic conspiracy by the Shi'ite infidels - the enemy within Islam and increasingly seen as the only enemy that matters. If this is how the man speaks publicly when he's being careful, then in private he might buy into such hateful thinking full-tilt.

* May: Unable to contain the rebellious Sunni majority, Assad was planning an Alawite state apart from Syria. (Asharq al-Awsat - (Saudi-owned, I think) He was allegedly planning this from the start in 2011, initially as a desperate escape from a Syria in revolt. It would be the Alawite-majority coastal districts to break away, presumably. The plans kept seeming imminent, but even in 2019, never came close to materializing. How do these people get such faulty predictive powers? Aren't they supposed to be the most cutting-edge in their grasp of reality everyone else is out-of-touch with?

But in this different plot al-Zoubi relates … In more detail but via Peoples' Mojahedin of Iran, for an idea of who gobbles this kind of story: “al-Zoubi confirmed that based on a Russian plan, which is getting Russian-Iranian collaboration, mayhem will be sparked at the core of Syria in the upcoming few hours. The campaign will launch on the premise of annihilating all signs of revolution and will set the foundations to Syria shifting to federalism. ... The eventual aim of the plot is to provide Alawites a northern state. However, a part of the western side of Aleppo is expected to be handed down to the Kurds.” The Alawite state would be named "Handy Syria" (?) and basically run across the Turkish border (Afrin and Khamsi are given as bounds of the area). I didn't map this out, but I don't think it has any Alawite-majority areas, just Kurdish and Sunni Arab, with a lot of enclaves. So the Alawite part of "Handy Syria" would include previously Sunni areas. Was ethnic cleansing planned? The Russians wanted it on the Turkish border in order to cut off all the "Syrian people" in the heartland from any support from the friendly Turks. The Kurds and the Alawites could be trusted guarding the twin gates in this nefarious plot. And again, the plot was set to unfold starting in the next “few hours.” Was there some chaos unleashed? Did any moves that way happen? Here we are, some 66,000 hours later by my quick count ... Maybe they gave up on the plan after Zoubi outed them? Just didn't want to show him right?

So in contrast to earlier Alawite state alleged plots, the breakaway state would stay allied with a Syria still under Assad's rule (and the Kurdish one would be controlled by Russia). So ... why make it separate? Just because this kind of "federalism" is such a bad thing to him? The kind of thing terrorist Kurds and terrorist Alawites do? Or because it leads to implications of further acts of genocide that would be required? And that's more reason to be all stern and stuff when you go back to Geneva next time? If so … do they let these guys brew up their own methamphetamines too?

* April: Assad cooperated with ISIS is a staged re-capture of Palmyra, suggesting the Islamic State movement is not truly a Sunni Muslim force to support (as with all other Sunni extremists, including Al-Nusra). (Qantara.de) Al-Zoubi might feel, as many do, that ISIS is rather a part of the satanic Shi'ite conspiracy against them. He seriously might believe just that.

* September: “(Al-Zoubi) added that the Arab League abandoned Syria in favour of taking the UN Security Council’s lead and did not hand Syria’s seat at the league to the opposition, a move which he described as supporting the Syrian regime. He also claimed that the Arab League did not support Syrians in overthrowing the regime that killed them and sold away their homeland to Iranians and Russians, according to his statement.” (Middle East Monitor) Is the Arab League in on the conspiracy? He seems to be wondering that, threatening to wonder more if they don't play by his rules.

* March: "There is an international conspiracy and a cover-up of Russian massacres and a cover-up for (president) Bashar," said Zoubi, who is chief negotiator for the High Negotiations Committee (HNC)." International conspiracy, huh? Is it the Jews? No, probably not. The Shi'ites! They run everything! (Reuters, March 10, 2016)

* May: Hezbollah killed its own military commander Mustafa Badreddine during clashes in Syria. Why? Maybe just to make the Sunni "revolutionaries" look bad? So Zoubi understands false-flag logic, as long as it's by the Shi'ite conspiracy side. (Al-Jazeera, reaction tweet)

* March 30: "Syrian Kurds are pressuring the Syrian opposition to resign Asaad al-Zoubi, the head of the Syrian opposition delegation to Geneva talks, after he suggested Kurds were “bandits and “mercenaries throughout history”. " (ARA News). The HNC initially had Kurdish representatives included, but they resigned from the effort on March 29, likely after less-public requests to the same effect were rebuffed. (Wikipedia - HNC) Al-Zoubi stayed at HNC. The Kurds are generally Sunni Muslim, not Shi'ite, but a bit secular-minded. Perhaps for this reason – and for being part of the HNC's broad membership, Al-Zoubi had to cut them some guarded slack, but be extra-annoyed when even they seem to get in the way of the really Sunni Arab freedom fighter-types (plus Chechens, Uighurs, etc.) ...

* September: Zoubi complains The U.S. "preferred to work with Kurdish ‘terrorist’ groups such as the People’s Protection Units (YPG), Peshmerga forces and Yezidis, “while refusing to deal with the FSA that effectively fought against ISIS in Northern Aleppo, and recently in Jarabulus.” Furthermore, he says Kurdish (and perhaps Yezidi) forces are "terrorists," unlike "FSA," and their ilk, including Jabhat al-Nusra.  (ARA News, tweet)

Sunni Muslim women used as human shield by Kurdish terrorists … no, wait...
Jaish al-Islam for example is super-cool by him despite the horrific reality, including killing and mass kidnapping of civilians just because of their religion (see again my best overview here). It's not as clear if he lumps these popular groups into the broad conspiracy along with ISIS (whom the Kurds and Yezidis were fighting, sometimes desperately) and of course thence with the other terrorists like Hezbollah and the "Assad Shi'ite regime." But that sounds like his kind of thinking.

My Semi-Informed Observations

There's an ugly sectarian thinking that's grown in the last decades and drives Sunnis of the extremist, takfiri persuasion from across the globe to come and kill Shi'ites in Iraq, and now Alawites in Syria, besides in other battlefronts across the globe against various regional infidels. These supposed villains, as the impressionable hear it, are killing Sunni Muslim babies for sport, a global satanic conspiracy by the Shi'ite infidels - the enemy within Islam and increasingly seen as the only enemy that matters.

The public words of Al-Zoubi, just as seen in this short sampling, give reason to suspect he susbscribes to such views. He's far from unique in that regard, unfortunately. I don't know how especially he needs to be called out over it; he just happened to seem extra interesting to me in light of his later comments on the Douma chemical attack in 2018 (see part 3, and later part 4), and then seeing his scrap with the Kurds and Twitter (see part 3).

In Syria at least those riled up to fight the Satanic conspiracy get all sorts of outside assistance and enabling, and usually get paid to kill – by design, better than Syria can afford to pay its own soldiers. Of course, sources in the Persian Gulf tyrannies supplying most of the money. But to Saudi-sponsored Al-Zoubi, only those supporting the government side, and especially Shi'ite forces, - the ones legally invited to help, by the legal and popular government of Syria – are spitefully dismissed as “mercenaries.” Whereas on the opposition side, he'll call everyone but ISIS just “rebels” at worst, since even he can't pretend they're all “Syrian freedom fighters.” Naturally, he would ignore or tacitly approve of any crimes they committed in the pursuit of the divine mission.

So he paint a simplified picture of heroic Jihadists vs. regime villainy he calls it “Shi'ite” at almost every chance. And there's some broader global conspiracy involved, trying to obscure Assad's and Putin's crimes in Syria. This might help show how it's not just Shi'ites as people here but something broader and insidious working through them and others - like Satan, maybe, pulling a great many strings as he would, so one's God could seem more awesome compared to the challenge. I don't need to read the full version to know the plot includes Russia and Syria, of course, plus Iran, and North Korea. It's it's not clear who else - probably China? Yes, Satan is big on commies, and generally on Russians, besides Shi'ites. Non-state parties he'd include: Hezbollah, Shi'ite forces or forceful voices anywhere, various media outlets and reporters, other parties to be decided as he feels the need to exert leverage here or there. (e.g. September example above: suggesting maybe the Arab League has been swayed to the dark side too - not explicitly here, but if the friction grew over time, I bet he could talk himself into that corner.)

He seems alarmed at this pro-Assad conspiracy, maybe because it was so sneaky as to get a shitload of factual truth behind it, or to simply get reality itself bought off? No, he wouldn't want to put it like that. But yes, that has to aggravate the man. Anyway, he could calm his panic, if he wanted to, by noting how the Western world, the Gulf tyrannies, and half the rest of the world's media and leaders seem totally immune to their plot. They remain staunchly anti-Assad, and open to nearly any propaganda claim against him, no matter how absurd. Nonetheless, the faith might have been waning, skepticism growing. So, blame a conspiracy.

He keeps fairly mum about the Alawites, suggesting he has nothing but venom for them. The exception is his urgent warning of the plot for Alawite and Kurdish states “Handy Syria” set to begin within hours. A lot of Sunni Arabs might have to be forced out or killed to facilitate that plan. He might expect gleeful Alawite militias would help with the rape and rounding up of the people in the way of their new homes.

As noted above, the secular-leaning Kurds might be guardedly tolerated by Gen. Zoubi, as fellow Sunnis, until they get in the way, then he's instantly ugly about the treachery, and stays that way. He's cool sitting with Christian George Sabra, because George echoes the opposition line. He doesn't represent Syria's Christians, who tend to support Assad and thus to Al-Zoubi, any of them who takes up arms would classify as terrorists, like most or all Kurdish forces anywhere, and perhaps the Yezidi (sort of Christian) forces in Iraq.

Another suggestion of his comments: no Sunnis who rise up to fight the government class as terrorists – he might agree in form about Al-Nusra Front, but then take every chance to cover for them anyway. Only Islamic State / ISIS / ISIL / Daesh classes as terrorist for him, but he seems to think they're part of the Shi'ite conspiracy, so ... he seems to be delusional.

Al-Zoubi's flippant, or flipped-from-correct, use of the “terrorist” label comes a matching penchant for moralistic exaggeration, with phrases like “annihilating all signs of revolution.” The basic gist of his firm stance is deep certainty – no mere suspicion – that Assad is the only real problem in Syria, and his victory would “bring destruction to the whole country.” Heck, it might usher in an epic genocide of all the Sunnis, and threaten the whole world. To the great moral philosopher Asaad Al-Zoubi, the foreign-backed “rebels” from FSA to Jaish al-Islam and the “Syrian people” they represent are pure as snow. Again except for all the parts of it they managed to sweep under that ISIS (Persian!) rug.

So not only is he wrong and delusional, he insists on being extreme about it. But he was the right kind of wrong, and the right kind of certain – to some influential minds. So it shouldn't be surprising that this FSA general was selected by the Saudi royal family, along with a leader of a sectarian terrorist group they sponsored, to head up deciding the entire opposition's demands for the Geneva III stall-a-thon. That alone would suggest a rather bad apple, but it surely helps to have such a peek inside the parts of his brain he shows the world. That peek continues and goes deeper in part 3. Again, all this above was just from 2016, in his polished showing under the limelights at Geneva. Afterwards, it gets more scant but less sanitized.

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Fallujah Fake ISIS Document, Part 2

Fallujah Fake ISIS Document, Redux
June 7, 2016
(incomplete) 
last edits June 10

In December I wrote a little-seen analysis of  the Falluja Fake ISIS Document, which I considered as possible "massacre pre-marketing" in Iraq. It was revealed only as Iraqi and allied forces were planning to re-take Fallujah from Daesh (Islamic State) It's dated September 25 (translated from a Hijri date) and actually publicized in mid-October, before being re-publicized, more widely-noted, and debunked, in December.  It ordered Daesh (ISIS) fighters to abandon Fallujah, but not without first committing various atrocities it would blame on the Iraqi military and allies.

I and others may have been too quick to call that a counterfeit, but now the feat has been repeated, and it feels about twice as likely to be fake. I was also inspired to finally create a page at A Closer Look On Syria to consider both of them. And now the allegations of militia abuses are coming in (see below), and the subject matters.

The first find was clear in its intent to demonize any liberating force, especially Shia forces. But in appearing fake, it spun around in most minds to do the same; the fakery implicated the "sectarian Shi'ite militias" who wanted a "carte blanche" to kill Sunnis and pretend it was ISIS framing them. But they did it with what seems to be an obvious fake.

So did they just goof-up? Or ... did someone else fake it for them, while trying to make them look stupid along the way? Reverse psychology being what it is, in fact I propose another turn is involved, and its goal was to create just that widespread interpretation. The experts might've walked into a trap, wittingly or not, and given ISIS "carte blanche" to do whatever they want and let it look like the culmination of this plot by the genocidal Shi'ite goof-ups. 

In May, 2016, as Iraqi forces and allies prepared to actually enter Fallujah, another document to the same effect was allegedly issued. Dated 9 or 10 of May (the Hijri date is hard to read - there's a 2 or 3 involved, and at too low a resolution to tell which), its commandments are about the same. Point 2 says blow up houses and mosques and blame the liberators. Point 4 says to dress as Iraqi or Shia forces and execute prisoners, and "document the killings while chanting Shiite slogans and publishing them as acts committed by the Shiite forces themselves." (Never mind that they'll also deny it, even as they seem to boast with the open videos - the public and the Ulema will probably not be confused)

The paper was reportedly discovered by the mainly Shia Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) in Karamah, northeast of Falluja, lightly crumpled. It was quickly published by PMU supporters to prove Daesh duplicity, as if the first find never happened. The earliest mention I've found is a May 23 tweet, 1:17 PM exposing the "smokescreen" - Another 30 minutes later heralded "an important document found by our heroes in Fallujah." A later Facebook post by Dr. Tim Anderson (accurately) describes this false-flag thinking as "the modus operandi of NATO-backed terrorist groups... What DAESH, Nusra and FSA have in common."

Signs of Forgery
Many have re-posted it with no comment, as it speaks for itself - just like the last one. But it's also seriously questioned. A Vocactiv analysis on May 24 explained the document and how its veracity is doubted by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi - the main expert cited to call the previous one fake. "He says the Iraqi military or Shiite militias likely created it," the report says, "to pin the blame for any acts of destruction and war crimes that might take place during the fight for Fallujah on ISIS" (note: they leave open that the acts might be done by either side). Tamimi is quoted as telling them “It’s similar to the fake tweeted by Col. Steve Warren in December, albeit slightly improved.” The letterhead is now correct, for one (Anbar, not Nineveh province). Here he cites only an improbable job title.

Another issue I noticed is what seems to be a directly copied "official stamp." The square blue stamp on each document is shown for comparison at right: the 2016 instance (bottom) might be rotated about 0.5 degrees either way relative to the 2015 order (top), or not at all (the crumpled paper might be giving a false perspective). 

It's not built in to the paper at that angle (of course stamps usually aren't); another document found more recently (June 6 tweet) tells Daesh fighters to flee to Raqqah. It's a bit suspicious itself, with the convenient little battle-burns, but has what seems like the same stamp done at a notably different angle from these two.

If these are the same exact angle, it would suggest someone copied the one onto the other, without even a basic rotation adjustment. It would suggest sloppy forgery, of the kind meant to be noticed. 

Furthermore, the later stamp seems blurry and low-resolution compared to more crisp lettering. Is that sloppy compression maybe, or stretching from a smaller copy? And consider the slight curve along the right in the top view; that could be part of the design, or from paper irregularities (no noticeable crumpling, however). But  the later stamp, on slightly crumpled paper, seems to mimic this anomaly, besides the rotation - all just a little bit blurrier.

Concerns In Context
True or not, it's widely believed now in most channels that these orders are fake. In the bulk of minds, it seems, this impressions raises concerns that the PMUs or allied forces are planning (or at least expecting) sectarian crimes.  Governments, media, and NGOs seem to credit the fears, urging no reprisal killings, as if it's quite likely otherwise - unconvincing presentation by State Dept. spokesman Mark Toner on June 3 tried to assure us it wasn't likely - etc., all setting the stage very well to be disgusted when and if they do surface.

major concerns about civilian safety led to a halting of operations around June 1  (EA Worldview) - as local were killed by Daesh while trying to flee or drowned crossing the river, allegedly burned themselves in suicide attempts, or like most remained face continued embargo, human shield status or worse, supposedly random shelling, and possible sectarian massacre - a lot of worry about all this has been expressed, with the effect of prolonging Daesh's control, which everyone insists is - maybe just barely - the #1 problem that does need solved. 

Past accusations of atrocities, quite possibly untrue, were trotted out to bolster the validity of concerns raised, for example, in the Vocactiv piece. Some perhaps knowing comments from that:
“Fallujah will be closed upon under the pretext of ISIS ... But it’s to kill Sunnis and exterminate them.”
“Soon on [your TV] screens: the raping of Sunni women, the killing of handicapped elders, the burning of a Sunni boy, the killing of Sunni children.”

Suggestions
If these predictions should come (seemingly) true ... and it seems they just now are ... let's notice the alleged implications of that. After their clever plans were exposed twice, and they apparently didn't notice - the genocidal Shia goof-ups will have committed the massacres they think they have squarely blamed on Daesh. Because of course they are both evil and stupid. 

Or will the worst effect be that the best fighters (in many minds) are kept out of the fight to avoid that risk (so far everyone agrees the PMUs will stay out)? Will it even matter? If the video shows such and such stolen uniform, etc ... they'll be "proven" to be there anyway, despite their denials...

My suggestion now to Iraqi military, the PMUs, their supporters -
1) Re-consider these documents as possibly booby-trapped disinformation - if they really seem valid, please explain why to the rest of us. If they do seem fake, use your brains to consider who and why, and explain your thoughts on that.
2) Work to address existing concerns about the likelihood of sectarian abuses (check the accusations, examine the evidence, accept any  truths and adjust, expose any falsehoods).
3) Press the fight, and obviously don't commit atrocities.
4) Prepare to document and explain any contested crimes - with or without a printed order, false-flag atrocities remain a possibility, but the masses over here would probably not see them for what they are, at least without some serious assistance.

Example Atrocities
(will be split-off into at least one post)
17 Men and Boys Executed:
First example case I've seen yet: Alongside more prevalent reports of abusive detention that most survive easily, there's the story told by "Abu Mohammed" and his nephew, to a dpa journalist -  17 men and boys of their extended family were shot dead in a field execution when they tried to surrender to conquering forces "who were wearing police uniforms but carrying the flag of a militia group." One victim was aged 10, but other children and women were reportedly spared and later released, they say.

Now, if these details are even true ... who could get a single flag but not enough proper uniforms to look like militiamen ... in police uniforms instead? Recall the implied Shia militia plan had been to pose as themselves, pretending to be ISIS posing as them, and demonize themselves on video. But they would have enough uniforms to do that trick right. Or were the uniforms a last-minute change, and they forgot to lose the flag? There's no proof they even had this flag, but it sounds compelling - they probably did fly the flag, and it was probably false.

Saturday, December 26, 2015

Falluja Fake ISIS Document: Massacre Pre-Marketing in Iraq?

Falluja Fake ISIS Document: Massacre Pre-Marketing in Iraq?
December 26, 2015

Yeah, it's Fake ...
There's been some talk lately about the supposed Deash (Islamic State) pamphlets circulating in Falluja, ordering their members to frame Iraqi forces for gross crimes when they flee the city. In my opinion, it's mainly been stupid talk, and there's a sick underside to this development people aren't getting.

The document (shown here, original and translated, from Col. Warren tweet) was revealed on December 22. It has a bad translation ("holly fighters," etc.) but the content isn't disputed. By this, the order instructs fighters to dress up and act like Iraqi armed forces members and then: blow up mosques and houses, and shelters full of civilians, shoot people with rooftop snipers, torture and massacre captive civilians, assault women, loot houses, film as much of this as possible, and send the videos to Al Jazeera and Al-Arabiya to air as crimes of the Shia-majority fighters.

The first media reports crediting that claim were reasonably duped (example: The Hill 12/22). After all, the idea makes sense, and the first stupid talk was from credible members of the U.S. military, whose spokesman Col. Steven H. Warren claiming it was a "believable" "formal order" of ISIL (as he calls them). That was based on the stamp and its sinister attitude, and maybe on whatever information it was handed it with (like how someone else got a copy of what clearly should be a secret plan).

Then came smart but limited analysis like Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, who alerted Warren on Twitter that the doc seems fake (many others followed suit). His reasons: it uses paper with the letterhead for Ninawa (Nineveh) province, while Falluja is in Anbar province, and it refers to the Iraqi militia with its proper name "Hashd Sha'abi" instead of a Daesh slur like "Hashd Rafidi." Further, it claims a decision was already made to leave Falluja soon, when there seems to be no sign of that (and it's now been several days further).

Soon, there was debatable dispute about the authenticity of the orders. "B" at Moon of Alabama (a brilliant researcher with a lot of good finds) was on this the first day, citing Tamimi and another experts doubting the evidence. In an update, "b" noted the media shift - with an unacknowledged insertion at the New York Times:
The NYT first repeated the military propaganda of the fake leaflet without any doubt or checking of its authenticity. It now says that there is a "debate" about the genuineness of the document. There is no "debate". The experts all say that the document is fake.
There is a sort of debate between the credibility of those lodging the claim and the opinion of experts. And clearly, the call of fake is winning that fight in the public mind, which is what matters.

For the record, I'm not totally convinced by this (is the Daesh directorate for false-flag operations in Nineveh? Would they use the militia's proper name sarcastically? Might they goof it up on purpose? Etc.) But these do seem good reasons to call forgery, and I'll take that as the clearest reading and presume it is a fake. My standing questions regard who and why.

... But it Could be a Real Preview
Laughing off the fake serves to ridicule the idea of a false-flag massacre at a time we should take the threat seriously. For terrorists of the Daesh grade of evil losing a key city, this is an expected behavior. They commit victory massacres on conquest of new cities, blamed on fleeing loyalists (see Comparing Terrorist Victory Massacres for Daesh ones compared to those of the Idlib "Army of Conquest"). The pattern on the losing end as they flee is less clear, and probably less common. However, it does happen...

Long before ISIS appeared, even the previous "moderate" Islamists fighting in Syria gave us a nice example in Daraya, near Damascus, in late August, 2012. Rebels had taken over the city and controlled it until an army offensive at this time forced them out. Along they way in, rebels and "activists" claim, Syrian army forces and "Shabiha" militias killed hundreds of civilians, perhaps over 1,000.

Men killed and filmed by rebels in Daraya, 2012
But credible reports (Robert Fisk, among others) say local rebels had seized hundreds of hostages by then. Many more were kidnapped at the last minute and forced into basement "shelters." It's believed rebels executed many these after talks broke down and before they fled. (see ACLOS page for more details). Some were killed or dumped in the city's central cemetery; one local told Robert Fisk "he believed that most were related to the government army and included several off-duty conscripts. "One of the dead was a postman – they included him because he was a government worker," the man said."

To support their story, rebels showed videos of gender-segregated people executed in basements. They showed a large batch of dead men, (civilian, fighters, or a mix, unclear) "found" murdered inside a mosque that rebels were using as a base, after they clearly brought the bodies there on blankets.

The Western world of course bought the rebel version as "“an atrocity of a new scale" by the "Assad regime."

This is just the kind of thing we might expect to see in Falluja and other areas held by Daesh, in Iraq and Syria, as they loose their grip there. Consider their reported threat recently to kill anyone who tried to flee nearby Ramadi. The state and Shia militias for their part want all civilians out before they really attack, but Daesh wants the people there, as human shields or hostages, or simple props. Falluja will be the same way. If the occupiers ever decide to leave, that will be their last chance to use those props the usual way - to demonize their enemies and fan the flames of yet more sectarian conflict towards its apocalyptic end.

However, a flurry of misdirection has left the public ready to absolve Daesh if they try for anything like the Daraya scenario, and to blame Iraq's equivalent of the reviled "Shabiha.".

Whose Fake, and Whose Carte Blanche?
The contested ISIS orders purport to be genuine, and might well look that way on first pass, but the contrary clues in the header and the text should have been noticed almost as quickly by any real analyst. Yet, one is to believe, they were missed and the US was caught unwittingly passing on a fake document. If it was handed in, I'm not buying the acceptance was unwitting.

Then it's possible the US, some agency or ally, faked it themselves and goofed up. But I also doubt that, and suspect the errors were on purpose, to let the public and experts expose the military fraud... That's one way to sow an idea, while letting people think they're forming it themselves.

At Moon of Alabama, "b" didn't suggest where the document originated, but emphasized the US military circulating it as credible, and pointing out how this was helping Daesh boost its image.
This, in effect, will make the Islamic State look better than it is. ... One would think that the behavior the Islamic State displays in its own propaganda videos is argument enough to condemn it. By using obviously fake IS documents to condemn the Islamic State the U.S. military creates the opposite effect. That the U.S. needs fake evidence to let the Islamic State look bad actually makes it look better than it is. This not only in the eyes of its followers.
This is true, but the flip side is perhaps more troubling - it makes ISIS' enemies look exceedingly bad, roughly Daesh-grade evil. It also makes them look like stupid bunglers. As I first put it in a comment there: "This is a spooky move. Who faked this doc and why? The implication seems clear to me - we're supposed to presume IAF/Shia militias faked this, presumably to explain the massacres they have planned, and just goofed up with an "obvious" fake. ... ISIS will feel emboldened to go ahead and committ [sic] false-flag massacres on their way out, now that the blame is "obvious." More stabbing Iraq in the back, whoever drafted it."

The same implication seems to be coming through. One response to Warren's tweet: "No, these documents are fake. More U.S. military propaganda to cover up murderous abuses against Sunnis by #Iraq's Shiite militias." That comment got 24 retweets 27 likes before I saw it, so it's a widespread feeling.

There have long been allegations of sectarian Shi'ite death squads in Iraq from 2003 and forward, who do terrible things to Sunnis and sometimes their own, with the blamed groups denying the claims but Western media and most observers accepting them. These stories are easily accepted by anti-imperialist thinkers as these militias are supposedly backed by the United States to keep down Iraq's Sunnis. I'm not an expert in the area, but skeptical of all of it, after seeing what national forces, Sect-based or not, have been framed for in Syria while fighting the same kind of deceptive Sunni extremists (the mythical "Shabiha" massacres, etc.) I know less about Iraq with a higher percentage of Shia more linked to Iran, so it's entirely possible some or many of these crimes are real. But still I remain skeptical until I've looked closer.

The suggestion here is these same type of militias faked this pamphlet, duped the Americans with it, and now should pay a price for that. Because the allegation is heavy, even if it's leaped to lightly; they plan to commit the horrible crimes listed above, on a sectarian basis, and really felt this time the media would believe them and not the Sunni accusers they've believed before. And then, they tried for this with the easily-exposed fake we see.

Guess what? That's another suggestion I'm not buying.
Here are the 6 main possibilities for this scrap of paper:
1) Iraqi forces fake to explain massacres they intend to carry out and blame Daesh, but goofed up
2) Iraqi fake to explain false-flag Daesh massacres they suspect will happen, but goofed up
3) Somehow a real Islamic State document, despite apparent discrepancies
4) A real ISIS document made poorly to suggest option 1 and discredit IAF and/or explain their own planned crimes
5) US/CIA/allied fake to simply make Daesh look bad, but goofed up
6) US/CIA/allied fake to suggest option 1 and discredit IAF and/or help cover for predicted Daesh crimes, and/or to help sow the emerging narrative of "our problematic Shi'ite allies," to provide the moral pretext to turn on them once their usefulness is outlived.

That last option has no obvious motive to most people, but there often seems to be a pattern of the U.S. and its allies subverting Iraq as it becomes aligned with Iran and/or Syria, pretending to help but stabbing them in the back, bombing their forces and Iranian allies a suspicious number of times, etc. Note the Western powers decided to throw Iraq and Syria both under the bus as they watched their own allies build the ISIS menace (see here, 2012 DIA documents). And the West blamed supposed anti-Sunni policies in both countries for spawning the problem, as they set to take advantage by carving territory from both countries (it's an open policy that if Daesh takes land, the dictator in Damascus doesn't get it back, and the Iranian pawns in Baghdad might permanently lose their land too, for an envisioned new Sunni state, sort of a Turkish-Saudi-sponsored Israel for them....).

Anyway, here's what Washington's experts say about the implicated Shia fighters, who are to some minds detestable US proxies (Business Insider):
Michael Pregent, a former US Army intelligence officer who served as an embedded military adviser in Iraq, told Business Insider that he thought the document could be a Shia militia forgery.
...
Phillip Smyth, a researcher at the University of Maryland who is a leading expert on Shia militias, also told Business Insider he had doubts about the document's authenticity. "Essentially, [the pamphlet] gives a sort of carte blanche for sectarian Shia militias to continue engaging in vicious activities and also gives cover to Iran's activities with those groups in Iraq (given they back a large number of the groups participating in the Fallujah offensive)," Smyth said.

Now back to the first claims by col. Warren, “Clearly, this isn't the behavior of a legitimate government or of a legitimate military force, it's the behavior of thugs, it's the behavior of killers and it's the behavior of terrorists." (The Hill) Well, the reading now - which he probably predicted - is the document shows the real, planned behavior of Iraqi armed forces. They think like thugs, not like a legitimate government. That's a problem to come back to, huh?

Warren said the order was aimed to discredit the Iraqi security forces and its national government, and that part is probably true. So who decided on that? Was it really just genocidal Shi'ite goof-ups? 

Saturday, December 12, 2015

Coalition Air Attack on the Saeqa Army Base

December 12, 2015
(incomplete) 
last edits Dec. 20

Aircraft of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition almost certainly did deliberately attack the Saeqa military camp near Deir Ezzour the  night of December 6, killing four Syrian army soldiers and wounding 13 others. 

This is probably why the coalition knew they could/had to deny it immediately, unlike a subsequent claim of civilians killed in another strike in Hasakeh. That one, maybe - they were bombing in the area. But Saeqa, no way. Their operations in that area and that time only hit ISIS targets and were 55 kilometers (35 miles) away from the base, to its southeast. It's a day's walk at least, and takes way longer if you're dragging a fighter jet. How on EARTH could they be here and also get over there in the same night?

No, that's not all - they have other evidence: a radar track of a Russian "backfire bomber" that passed by the same place and time and hit that base, presumably on accident. Well, it's been repeated by everyone, with suspended disbelief, but they can only cite one or two anonymous officials so far speaking of this from knowledge. The claim may solidify with confirmation by other, named people. Or it might still melt away into a complicated accident story. But so far, the US is clear it was not them or anyone allied.

I still haven't read everything available or studied any videos, and there will be plenty of new information coming anyway - but I got a sort of incoherent start (rough week) at the talk page for the ACLOS page Airstrike on Saeqa military camp near Deir ez-Zor Here, I'll share a quick copy of main points and the mapping. Sources etc. soon. We can see why this non-coalition explanation is not going to stick.

The Significance of this Area
Saeqa base is (apparently) the northern base shown here in orange, just outside Ayash. The pink-shaded area here is government-held, with the gray ISIS/Daesh-held. Blue = oil fields. Ignore the goof up at the bottom.

Note just this one oil field (el-Mashash, see below) is still government-held. For many miles on all sides and miles on the other side of the nearby Iraq border, is Daesh gray.






See overall situation map, small form - the pink spot right of center. This is the last little island of  "regime control" - outer Deir Ezzor, Ayash, and a small swathe of land including two army bases and the one government-held oil field in the whole region.  the last slight roadblock speedbump between Mosul and Raqah. This is Syria holding on by its fingers to its last and shrinking island in a sea of Deashbags. Someone with jets stomped on those fingers.
Below is the area in detail.
Daesh forces just 2 km away in fact took advantage of the attack to attack the base themselves, but this was "repelled," for the moment.They still plan to overrun it and everything else here. More attacks like the one on December 6 could really help them out.

As Damascus worded it in their official letter of complaint, "This hampers efforts to combat terrorism and proves once again that this coalition lacks seriousness and credibility to effectively fight terrorism."

Who has a potential, logical motive to remove more territory from Syria's government control and balkanize the place, and has openly lobbied for just that? The US-led coalition side is the one with a strong possible motive to hit this base, obviously. That's why Russia's doing it must've been a mistake. They have zero motive. 
 
Mapping Syria's Story
From the soldiers at the base up to Damascus and the Kremlin, so far ... it seems like this is what they're saying happened (subject to revision):

4 US-led coalition jets flew north from the Bukamal area at the Iraq border (after flying from or through Iraq?). Two of them behaved like the US says its acknowledged jets acted  - they hit targets about 55 km southeast of Ayash, which is all ISIS turf. (no US details on flight directions yet to compare)

The other two - nationality to be announced, but coalition member state(s) - peeled off a bit to the west and blasted the Saeqa base. 

Sources say the attackers then flew north and hit target (of no mentioned interest) in Daesh-held Shadadi. 

Here's how that maps out compared to US claims. This is how they deny the area. 55 km southeast, it seems, is just a bit further back on the attack flight path. 

They MAY still officially deny this by saying it was the Russians who snuck in between them all and launched this goof-up. But they may well admit this too merits investigation. Then they would investigate it for a long time.

An Hour Earlier?
They also deny it by time, and that also fails. An anonymous official told US News how a dozen Russian bombers flew in from Russia, on an unusual route via Iran and Iraq, and secretly bombed Bukamal and Deir Ezzour. This was all seen on radar. "One senior official said the Russian aircraft were in the air around 9 p.m. Sunday near the city of Deir el-Zour, whereas the coalition aircraft were flying an hour earlier about 55 kilometers away."

The time zone this is rendered in isn't certain; local time (GMT +2) is usually given, but they may be using Iraq time (GMT +3), meaning 8 pm in Syria. It's either this or there's disagreement when the attack happened. The officials say "one of the TU-22s made a pass over the area of the army camp within one minute of the explosion that killed the Syrian troops" at around 9. But the Syrians always said the attacks was shortly before 8 pm, give or take ("according to the Syrian General Staff ... between 19:40 and 19:55 local time (+2 hours GMT)." - RT).

So did it happen about the same time coalition jets were said to be there, making that acknowledged strike on about the same path witnesses describe? If so, the coalition confirms their presence in the location and time to be the attackers, and their alleged Russians got there too late to fit the bill. Otherwise, he's using the wrong time zone and confusing things, while claiming to have done its local strikes at around 7pm local. We shall see if anyone bothers sorting that out.

Coordinated with ISIS?
Syrian Perspective passes on a unique story where ISIS was already attacking the Saeqa base and called in support strikes to Turkey, who called them into the coalition. There's enough logic to that it's possible, bit I doubt it. More likely, they just took advantage. I'm curious though if they were extra-prepared at the moment.

No News, My Guess
Added December 20: It's now been almost 2 weeks since the event, and over 10 days since the last word from either side. That was by Russia. They said on the 9th (MoD statement, via Facebook) "As soon as the Syrian officials publish the results of the incident investigation and munition inspection, the Russian Defence Ministry is to get information about the aircraft, which performed the airstrike on the Syrian troops."

They and everyone knew it seemed to be a coalition attack, maybe just by its flight path from and maybe back into Iraq. However, the coalition blaming Russia says the Russian attackers flew in through Iraq, so that's their explanation for that.

And only one side has specified a model of aircraft; the coalition says the Russians used a TU-22, long-range "backfire bomber" (jet-style bomber), and had about a dozen of them in the group.

Both sides claim good evidence against the other, but neither has come out with any more of it. My guess is this: the Syrians and Russians finished the munition inspection are are now stumped over how to break the news that it was apparently a Russian-made jet that hit the base. Now they're left with proposing a "conspiracy theory" that the coalition somehow (Kiev?) acquired a TU-22 or a few of them (probably not a dozen), and used that to implicate Russia.

And that can't be done on accident, but as part of a deliberate plan to stomp on Syria's fingers in this delicate location - and blame Russia for it (with Iranian and Iraqi airspace complicity at least built into the story).

But the alternative the coalition offers makes virtually no real-world sense. So, if my hunch is true, Moscow and Damascus should come on out with it. And maybe they will, but they want a well-assembled case first. Will it be more days? Weeks? Months? Decades/forever?

Base Location
A stitched panoramic view from attack site video shows the place has trees. the most common indicated area doesn't seem to have any. Syrian Perspective's map here points to "Camel Corps" base almost in Ayash, and there are trees. Another map I found on Twitter points to army storage next to that, also maybe consistent. (anyone trying, this is most likely a morning shot, so the gate is south of the camera, and remember panoramic views "bend" the scene, so don't take visible angles too literally) (also, it's quite possible two or more areas were hit.)

We'll probably have an exact geolocation someday. But all sources agree it was somewhere in that pink, well-known pocket of government control, so exactly where doesn't matter so much except for pinning down finer points of the story (we may or may not get that far).


Thursday, October 8, 2015

Syria Disaster Blame: "Assad" or the Regime Change Campaign?

Syria Disaster Blame: "Assad" or the Regime Change Campaign?
October 8, 2015 
edits October 10, adding The Wikileaks Files

"A muddled international strategy, a brutal regime, and a turbulent Middle East drove Syria to become a hell on earth," writes Armin Rosen, in his recent analysis "The 3 main drivers that destroyed Syria" By Business Insider, October 5 (Yahoo Finance mirror). Or alternately, as he also writes "simply, the Syrian civil war has gotten this bad because the Assad regime has made it this bad." His muddled assessment of these one to three core causes annoyed me, and sparked the following general overview of what really sparked the fire and kept it stoked for going on five years now.

How "Assad" Started a Civil War
The basic rundown of drives is: brutal Assad, confused response and not enough fighting Assad, and, nearer to relevance, the whole Arab Spring upheaval mentality ("A region where there are no longer any certainties"). But ultimately, all the bombing and massacres, bloodshed, devastation, and displacement, the rise of Daesh (Islamic State/ISIS/ISIL) in Iraq and Syria, and everything else bad is all on the shoulders of "a regime whose cruelty and desperation knows no limit." 

That's supported by an insanely long catalog of allegations suggesting Assad's cruelty also knows no logic. Such claims have been examined by many, including myself and team members at A Closer Look On Syria. We've debunked most of the bigger massacres by now. Rosen emphasizes only two major crimes, apparently chosen for their size; the Ghouta alleged sarin attack ("over 1,000" claimed dead, with the best evidence blaming the rebel side) and  the "Caesar" torture photos, ("10,000 tortured and killed inside of the regime's prisons since the uprising began" - the true story is not yet clear, but "Caesar" is clearly not to be trusted).

"The uprising" began, we recall, in mid-March, 2011 with peaceful protests allegedly crushed by government violence. As Rosen reminds us:
"Syrian government forces killed six people during a peaceful protest in Dara'a. The "stability" that the Assads had supposedly been so effective at fostering was rapidly exposed as a fraud. Massacres of protestors were frequent occurrences by the end of April, and by summer the country was in a full-blown civil war."
That's his short story of the war; protesters wanted regime change, the regime started killing them, and so they decided instead to fight for regime change. Then the first fighters were chased off by terrorists, and here we are. It's all the "regime's" fault, either directly or indirectly as they started the war by resisting their peoples' demands.

That's obviously missing some parts. As a random example, consider Kindi hospital in Aleppo, as shown at right after a terrorist truck bomb hit it in 2014. (It was housing soldiers at the time, not functioning medically). That was one powerful blast - a lot of explosives, a stolen and armored truck, some technicians, and a suicide driver clearly played into this incident. And any role played by "Assad's repression" in bits like this is indirect at best.

The record on peaceful protests vs. armed uprising and false-flag provocation is crucial here, but like the massacres, covered elsewhere (see Syria masterlist, point 6, for a partial overview). For now we can say that whether these claims of violent repression of protesters are true or not, the next question remains the same;  how did civil war became a viable option? Repression doesn't lead to organized violence, blasting buildings open, and seizing swathes of territory without access to weapons, fighters, financial support, safe havens, public relations, more weapons, etc.

Consider Bahrain. In the same report, Mr. Rosen notes:
No regime seemed safe — even Bahrain, a Gulf monarchy that hosted a large US military base, needed to call in the Saudi National Guard to quash a peaceful popular uprising. Back then, the entire Middle Eastern state system looked brittle, perhaps even primed for collapse....
How many towns or provinces did the Bahraini insurgents take over? How many army posts did they blow up? Zero, I think it is. They were repressed, but it didn't blossom into civil war there. Yet in Syria, it did. Why?

A bloody, prolonged civil war can take root if, for example, a neighboring country declares the government illegitimate, based on echoed but unverified opposition reports of genocide and extreme evil, and then it starts training supporting opposition fighters. Maybe they would allow Islamist fanatics to cross back and forth to heal and re-supply, share intelligence, send in weapons and occasionally air support, and lobby to create "safe zones" in the other territory, not its own ...

In short, the intensive intervention of NATO member Turkey is a crucial driving force enabling and prolonging the civil war. And this has happened with approval of their NATO allies, and with help from fellow Islamists in the Persian Gulf, Libya, and elsewhere. Everyone knows Turkey has supported all the Jihadist parties, even Daesh, in many ways but none of this is mentioned by Rosen. In fact, Turkey isn't mentioned at all. 

Financial and fighter support plus sectarian religious decrees flowing from the Persian Gulf tyrannies is absent from Rosen's analysis. The kingdom of Jordan's role in training and harboring fighters isn't mentioned. A known channel of weapons looted from post-war Libya into Syria goes ignored. CIA training and other US and Western hands in facilitating or covering up such things is not worth considering, Rosen decided.

But clearly, whether Assad started the conflict or not, outside powers have done much to make war an option, to make it the real state of affairs, and to keep it nice and prolonged (since outright victory is unlikely?).

Managing Expectations and Perceptions
The mental set-up for prolonged war goes back at least to mid-2011 declarations that the government was illegitimate, sparking hopes of a repeat of the Libya scenario. These criminal statements are mentioned by Rosen, but only derided in their lack of follow-through, not as having a role in enabling the civil war.

He does consider the Arab Spring mentality, in which protests + crisis + maybe intervention = regime change in favor of Islamists and against secular leaders. This mindset and expectation was of course engineered by Western-sponsored "democracy promotion" structures. These were, as usual, organized through the U.S. State department, this time working with Arab-world actors, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood, and solidified with the Libya example (itself backed and laundered by the more peaceful Egypt and Tunisia examples).

This mentality could be seen as a sort of poison sprayed into the whole region, and some states (the Gulf monarchies) got the antidote while others were expected to die. The clear aim of this, in Syria as with the others, was regime change. It was an optional decision taken before "Assad" killed a single "peaceful protester," and was taken for preexisting reasons (being an ally of Iran seems the primary one).
Consider the signs of thawing relations the US placed in the first years of Obama's presidency. As Robert Naiman's The Wikileaks Files (chapter 10, available here) explains,this "thaw" seems false. The public image was to show the U.S. "tried to engage Syria and failed, and that after the Syrian government cracked down on protests in 2011, the US had no choice but to abandon its efforts at engagement," In fact, the leaked cables show regime change plans, including fostering sectarian tensions, going back at least to 2006, and shows Washington "pursuing regime change for years and never fully switching to diplomacy."

In that light, consider Robert Ford, the first U.S. ambassador to Syria in years, sent as a sign of the that thaw. But he arrived in Damascus in late January, 2011, just weeks before the start of the "uprising" in Syria. In mid-March, protests and murky deaths of civilians and security personnel began. By early August the death toll was climbing when Ford vehemently denied any armed opposition fighters in Hama, a claim he considered a smear against the peaceful protesters there. This call was based on his own thorough inspection of the same city in early July; "the only weapon I saw was a slingshot," he said.

Extremists dump massacred policemen 
 in the river, Hama, August 1, 2011
The problem is the charges arose from an unprecedented July 31 armed rebel offensive that killed several police and soldiers in Hama in at least 3 different areas. 13 of the victims were dumped in the Orontes River the next morning (see detailed explanation here). At least one had his throat cut. The dumpers shout Allahu Akbar. Alarmed local activists warned that these were al-Qaeda fighters returned from Iraq. But the warnings were ignored, thanks to assurances like Ford's. In denying Islamist armed groups in Hama just as they seriously emerged there, Ford helped allow the civil war to take root without being clearly noticed as such. (see Robert Ford, Weapons Inspector: The Rebellion Begins in Hama, Part 2) Was this by accident or design?

Before that and to the present, the U.S. and its allies have maintained a reflexive refusal of alleged  rebel crimes, alongside a blanket acceptance of rebel allegations of regime crimes, to often ridiculous effect. For years now this has maintained the cover for armed gangs turned loose on the Syrian people, as was clear by the end of July, 2011.

Why the War "Assad Started" Failed to Topple Him as Planned
One notable feature of this war is how it goes on and on, rather than having a decisive regime-change moment like in Libya ... after which it all goes to hell. This hell has a slower onset, and that is enabled by the mixed steering it gets, from Washington especially. The massage sent to rebels, Syrian and otherwise, is something like "you deserve help and victory, so continue the fight, but ... don't expect help or victory just yet. Maybe next month."

Besides such blinking green lights to rebels, Rosen complains how Obama issued his chemical weapons "red line" threat against Syria, but then didn't follow-up on it. (side-note: it seems, rebels framed "Assad" by crossing the red line for him, on its birthday and just after UN CW "inspectors" arrived next to the attacks. Again, "Assad" crimes know no limits and also no logic).

Further, Obama failed to develop any credible secular alternative to ISIS, leaving the battlefield to Jihadists vs. Jihadists vs. Assad, and "now the US policy towards Assad's role in a post-war Syria remains unclear." Maybe that's because they've failed but don't want to admit it yet, but have to start adjusting anyway.

In contrast to this chronic Western vacillation, Rosen writes,
"Assad's supporters haven't flinched. ... . There was never any doubt in the minds of Assad's backers, who were far more organized and more committed to the fight than their adversaries."
This is true, but he cuts the truth off at its knees. External players are highlighted (Russia, Iran, Hezbollah - but not the lesser roles played by Iraq or Lebanon, among others). But Rosen doesn't mention the Syrian people, especially its loyal Syrian Arab Army, among these supporters. They've lost more soldiers and officers than the U.S. did in its entire Vietnam War, and they keep on fighting. They and their backers know they're dealing with terrorists and a life-and-death conspiracy. They know they don't have the option - enjoyed by the conspirators - to play around with denying that.

 Damascus, late March, 2011: not all of
"the people" wanted to "topple the regime"
Of course some of the Syrian people reject the current government as worse than the devil, but the population at large apparently does not agree. Early in the crisis they put on demonstrations like the one shown at right, only to be widely ignored in favor of Islamists on Youtube and calls for a "No Fly Zone." In 2014,  those Syrians not in rebel-held areas or displaced to hostile countries managed to cast 10.2 million votes (88.7%) for the "dictator" Bashar al-Assad to be their elected president (this is disputed, but not very well). Today, about 90% of those remaining in Syria live by choice in the dwindling government-held areas, despite the fact that more than half the country's territory has now been "liberated" by this regime change campaign.

Perhaps nothing but a Libya-style air can have any hope of crushing the will of all these people, and so this remains the call of the "opposition" and its supporters with their "humanitarian" concerns. But you know, considering Syria's excellent air defense ... massive nuclear strikes would be the easiest answer.

"Assad" as Creator of the Islamist Menaces
In Western minds, the most alarming thing about the Syria crisis is the rise of the obnoxious Deash (Islamisc State/ISIL/ISIS). They're so brutal and extreme in their Islamism even al-Qaeda has disowned them, they seem like a self-demonizing cartoon of themselves, and yet they control a good chuck of two nations. They could plot attacks on the West from inside Iraq and Syria, instead of somewhere else. It's a problem we finally have to stop, maybe. 

We've all seen the many lazy attempts to paint Daesh and "Assad" as cooperating on some illogical "evil" side in the conflict, either in a general sense (Assad's sectarian brutality drives recruitment, etc.) or direct, tactical and financial teamwork (secret oil deals, etc.). There were similar efforts to link "Assad" to the once-embarrassing al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra before the emergence of ISIS, and also to the FSA's Farouq brigade before that.

In Armen Rosen's article, the allegation appears in this form;
 "The regime freed jihadists from its prisons in the early days of the war, hoping to hasten the buildup of a jihadist element in the insurgency so that the regime could position itself as the only guarantor of the country's stability."
They claimed it was to help quell protests by meeting some demands, but Rosen sees through that to his imagined true intent. So the rise of ISIS was all an Assad plot? Well if so, no one in on the regime change campaign was taken in by it. Everyone in that camp knows there is so another protector of stability besides Assad. No one knows who it is, but since anyone would be better, they're pretty sure he'll appear right after the carpet bombing of Syria and destruction of its central government, saving the day from chaos ... just like someone probably did in Iraq and in Libya. Right?  

And just like the war he started but others continued, somehow "Assad" was able to get Turkey, Gulf monarchies, and their Western sponsors and other allies to sign on and help maintain these Islamist distraction forces that now run half of Syria.

There's ample evidence for US and allied support for the "jihadist element," but for those needing a reminder, let's just recall the released U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) documents from 2012 that reveal what the leaders' analysts knew at the time. To verify, see Judicial Watch PDFs - relevant ones are August 12, 2012 and October 12, 2012.  (see if needed external analysis here and here). Between the redacted majority are some golden snippets

The first notes that "western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey" - as the specified "supporting powers to the opposition" in Syria, were pursuing (or "wanted") the rise of an "Salafist Principality" (Islamic State) in the Syria-Iraq border area. Exact words:
"If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime" 
Areas of control and support for Daesh 
in Syria and Iraq, mid-2014 (CNN map)
This willful unraveling was clearly to "isolate" Syria from any support from Iran or Iraq, to break the Iran - (Iraq?) - Syria - Lebanon / Hezbollah Shia-oriented "axis of resistance" as they call themselves.

This DIA report is widely read as predicting the rise of Daesh/Islamic State and its announced global caliphate (a type of "salafist principality" with radical implications). The more immediate emergence though was al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra (JaN, who declare emirates, not as radical). JaN emerged on the Syrian battlefield prior to this report - noted therein as AQI elements fighting under the name "Jaish al-Nusra" - and was using the final name before 2012 was out. The broad strategy, whoever's it was, may have been to emerge both movements in this way, creating a Hegelian dialectic (or a "good cop-bad cop" routine). That would be to make the JaN creation a palatable "middle choice" between verbotten ISIS and verbotten "Assad."

Salafist principality, isolating the Syrian regime, in Iraq
The DIA noted in 2012 that al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), as well as the more radical Islamic State of Iraq (ISI, immediate predecessor to Daesh) "supported the Syrian opposition since the beginning," seeing it as a "sectarian uprising" they boosted in their Friday sermons, recruiting fighters to help kill the heretics in Syria. These same sectarian groups were "trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to the Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders," the report adds. These are just the areas where JaN and Daesh soon emerged. 

As the DIA noted in 2012, "Western countries, the Gulf States, and Turkey are supporting these efforts." Although allies "wanted" it, the analysts warned against this "unraveling" - not because of the problems it would cause for Syria but because of probable spill-over into Iraq.
ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY.
The DIA apparently saw no intelligence supporting Bashar Assad creating this menace just to make himself look good (maybe that's in the redacted parts?) Also, this dire warning is not mentioned in Rosen's analysis of what caused the violence and terrorism in Syria today, as he writes:
"Even during the crisis of late 2011 and early 2012, few predicted just how bad things would get." 
Luckily some of those few who did were paid to predict, and their information was passed on the leaders who could make informed decisions (presumably the DIA weren't the only ones seeing these signs).

So informed, what did the White House, State Department, CIA, and allies against Assad do? They amplified armaments to the insurgents, kept up the green lights, downplayed terrorism worries until it became undeniable, then blamed Assad when an "Islamic State" appears in the Syria-Iraq border areas. Even then, they mainly ignored Daesh as long as it only bled Syrians; only when they destabilized Iraq as well with their brutal conquest of Mosul, it became an emergency requiring action. That action had been mainly in Syria, with little effect on Daesh outside of Kobane. But it does let them prolong their ISIS campaign, in which removing "Assad" remains the top goal, even above fighting ISIS - let alone the proper al-Qaeda terrorists or their allies - because ISIS is the main worry, and Assad is of course the main precondition that caused ISIS. 

Yes in fact I can finally see how this is true. Assad and Syria's government and culture underlies all of this by continuing to exist and to do so off the West's geopolitical script. This requires, in some genius minds ... things like fostering the rise of Islamic State just to "isolate the Syrian regime," and then to trying to monopolize the ineffective fight against that creation, and use the fight to instead topple the isolated government.

Clearly the regime change campaign is the primary cause of the crisis in Syria, even though this is denied by people who insist that the only answer is more of the regime change campaign.

Does this mean the world is insane? It was seeming so, and quite clearly. But finally, there's the materialization of Russia's anti-Daesh campaign, and hey ... that's not just part of the world but a sizable part. The final results are yet to be seen, but sanity has a new chance here, much to the dismay of the regime change camp.