“There is so much debate over how the U.S. and other nations will stop ISIS but can these leaders be trusted?
In a CBS Report, Ben Swann exposes secret DOD documents that prove the U.S. wanted ISIS to emerge in Syria.”
What is significant in this report is that US mainstream TV acknowledges, with documentary evidence that the US government is supporting Al Qaeda affiliated rebels with a view to destabilizing Syria as a sovereign country.
What is also acknowledged by these secret Pentagon documents is that the so-called ISIS caliphate was in fact a US project from the very outset. It was named a “Salafist Principality” (aka Caliphate), which in essence is a play of words. Salafism and Wahhabism are overlapping ideologies.
What is implied by this Pentagon statement is that the unspoken objective from the very outset was to destroy a secular government and replace it by an Islamic State.
The Islamic State based in Northern Syria continues to be supported by the US and its allies, it has special forces within its ranks, which are in permanent liaison with US-NATO.
The counterterrorism air campaign launched in August-September 2014 is not targeting the Islamic State, quite the opposite. It is targeting the civilian infrastructure of a sovereign country which constitutes an act of aggression in derogation of international law.
The objective is still regime change with a view to instating an Islamic State modelled on Saudi Arabia, Qatar, et al.
People in America cannot say We did not know.
This CBS report did not emanate from the independent media.
Washington’s support of a terrorist Salafist organization is in the public domain. Supporting terrorism is a criminal act.
It’s State sponsored terrorism under the disguise of Obama’s self-proclaimed “war on terrorism”. “Can these leaders be trusted”.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, December 2, 2015
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.