Rt.com: ISIS is controlled by Obama admin and NATO

[geek tragedy]

http://rt.com/politics/202499-islamic-state-sponsors-russian/

Not to long ago there were some misguided individuals who claimed Russian state media was a credible news outlet . . . They are not missed.

The leaders of Islamic terrorists could be under the direct influence of NATO and Western powers using their movements to threaten Russia’s territorial integrity, says a former general of Russian military intelligence service.

“There are some grounds to suspect that American and British special services could support the Islamic extremists in order to target the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation,” Lieutenant-General Nikolai Pushkaryov, formerly of the Central Intelligence Directorate of the Russian General Staff said in an interview with the RIA-Novosti news agency. “The top of these movements can be under the influence of NATO agents,” he added.

The general also commented on the statement by the head of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov, who promised to destroy any Islamic terrorist who voiced threats against Russia. Kadyrov also told reporters that Chechen special services intended to hunt down and kill Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – the head of the Islamic State group (also known as ISIL and ISIS), adding that this man had been recruited to work for the US by General David Petraeus, the former director of the CIA, and former commander of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Back then, Kadyrov claimed the Islamic State “was acting on orders from the West and Europe.”

Pushkaryov said in his interview that he took Kadyrov’s words very seriously and believed that the head of the Chechen Republic could bring his plans to fruition. “I have a great respect towards Ramzan Kadyrov. If he and his men want to find this man, they would be capable of doing it,” he stated.

Rt.com: prisonplanet's crazy cousin

[Comrade Grumpy]

1. OK, this is RT quoting a Russian general saying some crazy, paranoid shit.

But it's probably an accurate quote.

I can find examples of US media outlets quoting people saying crazy, paranoid shit all day long. They're usually Republican senators and congressmen.

I have RT and Al Jazeera on the cable. RT is especially handy for whenever I'm feeling too good about the US; they've always got some horrible negative feature story about some aspect of our culture, economy, or politics. They're kind of like Ruso-FOX.

[geek tragedy]

2. And the leader of Chechnya. nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

4. Yeah, him, too. I'll see your two nutballs, and bet a McCain and an Imhofe.

And there's plenty more where they came from. And our media laps up and regurgitates their bullshit. Uncomfortable similar to how RT does it.

[malaise]

22. +1,000

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
M$Greedia good - RT -bad.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. Is Obama controlling ISIS?

[Comrade Grumpy]

32. I doubt anyone serious believes that. Is Iran controlling ISIS?

I doubt anyone serious believes that, either. But that doesn't stop some Western media outlets from letting crazies make such claims.

[Agnosticsherbet]

53. Iran is Shia and ISIS Suni. Shia Muslims are apostates that must be killed by ISIS.

Nobody that knows anything about Islam would believe, Iran is controling ISIS. ISIS is an exestential threat to Iran.

And really, it takes a pretty arrogant ass to think that people in the middle east just don't have it together enough to create and manage a movment like ISIS, or anything else. Politicicians and military leaders have a strong tendancy to affogant assholieness.

[arely staircase]

61. correct

in fact Iran and the US are probably coordinating at least indirectly on some level when it comes to fighting ISIS.

[Frustratedlady]

36. Maybe that nut has been viewing Palin too long.

She said she can see Russia from her house so why can't they see her back?

Viewing that dysfunctional family for very long can rub off.

[chrisa]

62. It's in the same way that Faux quotes some batshit crazy douchebag because they're too afraid to say

it themselves. They use words like "might be" and "according to" to put wackjob stuff out there without committing to it fully. That way, no backtracking is necessary, and their pea-brained readers get the story.

[Rex]

3. I think state owned media is slightly worse than for-profit owned media.

Funny we find the best news from non-profit media.

[geek tragedy]

5. Amazing how that works.

To be fair, corporate media wasn't always this bad though.

[Rex]

7. Too true, the media helped end the Vietnam war imo.

Showing pictures and footage that disturbed and outraged people back home. Reminding them of how gruesome war is, how barbaric. Compare that now with how the M$M showed Shock and Awe in Iraq in 2003. Like it was a football game.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Who created ISIS?

Who funded the thing?

[Rex]

8. Our pals in Saudi Arabia.

We have some strange friends.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Interesting. Our close ally created them.

And we're spending zillions to return to the Middle East and kill'em.And the Saudis, AFAIK, are doing zip.

Nothing suspicious here, at all.

[Rex]

10. I know, you would think after 9/11 we would be more cautious of who we make friends with.

We bomb the shit out of Pakistan, but prostrate before the kings and princes of the royal family in SA. Something ain't right with that scenario.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. So why would anyone be suspicious?

It all makes total sense.

[Rex]

13. It worked well, I bet most people think Saddam is responsible for 9/11.

To this day. The media worked overtime making sure that meme was well absorbed into their watchers skulls. If not Iraq, then most certainly Pakistan...we got OBL there, after all. So Iraq and Pakistan, evil bad...Saudi Arabia, good friends of the Bush family. Er...SA doubleplusgood.

Best just not to talk about it.

[geek tragedy]

14. Are you suggesting that the rt.com story

may have some merit?

[MannyGoldstein]

23. Am I suggesting that the general actually said what RT

claims he said?

I think it's pretty likely, but who knows?

As to whether what the general said might be true, might be true? Who knows? Goven the facts as I understand them, none of the scenarios make sense. I suppose I could toss a coin and pick one, but I'm not inclined to latch onto one out of multiple nonsensical scenarios.

[geek tragedy]

24. So you find the claim that Obama is ordering American

hostages to have their heads chopped off to be no less credible than the more mundane explanations of ISIS's origins.

[Autumn]

28. So can you point out where in the article that claim is? I don't know if it's my computer or what.

[jeff47]

52. In the title. And everywhere else in the article.

If the US and NATO are controlling ISIS, then the US and NATO ordered those beheadings.

[CJCRANE]

54. The title of the OP was written by a DUer. The article has a different title. nt

[jeff47]

55. Which still says we're in control of ISIS. (nt)

[CJCRANE]

57. But that "we" is a little vague.

Does President Obama have full knowledge of and control of all covert ops carried out by the USG, NATO, individual NATO countries and associated allies?

Did President Obama have full knowledge of and control of all covert ops initiated by the USG, NATO, individual NATO countries and associated allies during the Bush Era when he took office?

I don't necessarily agree with the article. Even the article is a little vague. But conflating it with "we" did this, or Obama did that, or Bush did so-and-so is even vaguer.

For example, General Petraeus claimed that it was his idea to pay off the sunni tribes in Iraq and that he did it against the advice of the WH and without them knowing initially.

Another example is that Paul Bremer took responsibility for disbanding the Iraqi military and claimed that it didn't come down the chain of command IIRC.

Not to mention that was the claim made about Iran/Contra. And plenty of other examples.

Boiling complex issues down into "we" did this or that, doesn't shed light on the issue.

[Capt. Obvious]

26. So you're saying that Obama hates donuts

[Capt. Obvious]

27. So you're saying Obama doesn't actually fill out his March Madness brackets

[Capt. Obvious]

40. So you're saying Obama is allergic to peanut butter

[woo me with science]

67. ...

[jakeXT]

17. And they can go around and brag

As-Safir said Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” he allegedly said.

Prince Bandar went on to say that Chechens operating in Syria were a pressure tool that could be switched on an off. “These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role in Syria’s political future.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html

[Rex]

18. I wonder if one of the owners of Foxnews has anything to do with it?

Just a bunch of innocent billionaires running around the world...no doubt to help it and better mankind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal

[obxhead]

20. We did by creating a power vacuum in the ME.

This shit wouldn't be going down if Saddam were still in power.

[Ravenna44]

59. True!

He would have gassed all his enemies to death and we would all be benefitting from the Iraqi stability for generations to come, as his equally psychotic children would have taken over the wacky murderfest right where he left off.

The invasion of Irq did no one any good - but can we please remember that Saddam was a mass murderer? If the US had been pals with him, you would now be complaining about how our government props up brutal dictators for profit.

And no - before you strawman me - I am not defending the war. Just saying I am bothered by the Saddam-whitewash job that keeps popping up in Dem circles lately. He did have WMD's for decades....used em on the Kurds, didn't he?

[obxhead]

64. And had nothing to do with the drive for the war.

We created the war built on lies with no plan for winning.

It had nothing to do with WMD or Saddam being a mean and terrible man. It was about profit. We are left with the results we fought for. Now the only thing we can do is try to supply tutue better groups and let them fight for their own lands.

[Ravenna44]

65. Yeah you are right

Like everyone else, I am disgusted that our country is a friend of KSA.

Yet like everyone else, I am disgusted that my country tore down the stability of Iraq.

So what is better: to make nice with monsters or to attack monsters? Seems like we all want it both ways - and we criticize the US government no matter which way it tacks.

We could build an economic wall around all monstrous governments and have nothing to do with them. That would be nice. But that's not feasible in 2014. And like everything else, I suspect it would hurt those countries' poor (depriving them of the strength to effect change from within) while those who govern would still loll in palaces.

[JonLP24]

12. This conspiracy makes no sense

It baffles me these illogical conspiracies spring up where they're very real easy to prove conspiracies (usually there is some sort of logic behind to why), especially in that region.

If they were involved there would have to be some propaganda reason which would be confusing to try to figure out. It'd truly be some 11th dimensional chess. Now US foreign policy indirectly creates groups like ISIS & they help & aid brutal regimes & aid whatever side of a conflict Egypt & Saudi Arabia are on but not when it comes to Israel.

Something like aiding or supply would make more sense "controlling" reveals its a bullshit conspiracy theory.

[Ravenna44]

63. Read international papers

Read various Arab media sources and you will find that conspiracy theories (most involving the US and Israel) are really popular and thrown about with wild abandon. Partly we can say it's America's fault for having done so much sneaking around, but it's also due to those governments deliberately keeping the citizens whipped up into a froth of pro-government zeal and religious patriotism and tribalism -- "look at the evil threat by evil foreigners; see how they hate Islam, see the war against Islam, see how the Jews are always behind it all." It covers government sins and creates fierce patriotism and loyalty. And after a while it starts to sound plausible - hell, I read enough of it and I start thinking, hmm, how do I know it's NOT true??

A Sudanese man, newly come to America, once told me he had the shock of his life when he met his first Jew. "But she was friendly, a very nice girl. At home they tell us Jews have horns!". It's pretty easy to convince people of stuff they half want to believe anyway.

[jakeXT]

15. Sounds like the NY Times, by quoting someone who should know it

Suspicions Run Deep in Iraq That C.I.A. and the Islamic State Are United

BAGHDAD — The United States has conducted an escalating campaign of deadly airstrikes against the extremists of the Islamic State for more than a month. But that appears to have done little to tamp down the conspiracy theories still circulating from the streets of Baghdad to the highest levels of Iraqi government that the C.I.A. is secretly behind the same extremists that it is now attacking.

“We know about who made Daesh,” said Bahaa al-Araji, a deputy prime minister, using an Arabic shorthand for the Islamic State on Saturday at a demonstration called by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr to warn against the possible deployment of American ground troops. Mr. Sadr publicly blamed the C.I.A. for creating the Islamic State in a speech last week, and interviews suggested that most of the few thousand people at the demonstration, including dozens of members of Parliament, subscribed to the same theory. (Mr. Sadr is considered close to Iran, and the theory is popular there as well.)

When an American journalist asked Mr. Araji to clarify if he blamed the C.I.A. for the Islamic State, he retreated: “I don’t know. I am one of the poor people,” he said, speaking fluent English and quickly stepping back toward the open door of a chauffeur-driven SUV. “But we fear very much. Thank you!”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/world/middleeast/suspicions-run-deep-in-iraq-that-cia-and-the-islamic-state-are-united.html?_r=0

I wish we would probe deeper, but it's probably muddled

http://www.corbettreport.com/episode-295-who-is-really-behind-isis/

Especially Baghdadi's stay at Camp Bucca is interesting and the real duration of the stay

Was Iraq's Top Terrorist Radicalized at a US-Run Prison?
A former US military compound commander at Camp Bucca suspects ISIS chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's extremism was fostered (or bolstered) at the facility.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/was-camp-bucca-pressure-cooker-extremism

[freshwest]

16. Not missed? Not gone, either, AFAIK. As to this latest revelation...

[Hekate]

19. RT defenders are still here, never fear. nt

[zappaman]

34. Yes they are.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4363923

[Enrique]

21. they are somewhat credible

but it's good to be aware of their propaganda aspect, just like with our own media.

[Emelina]

25. After speaking to a lot of Persian and Arab people with families there...

I found that most believe that ISIS is a product of the CIA. Some believe it got out of hand and now is acting on its own while others believe the ultimate goal is for the USA and Turkey to come in and fill the void when Assad, ISIS and the so-called FSA kill each other off.

[Spazito]

30. It boogles my mind anyone with a modicum of common sense...

would tout RT.com as credible.

[Comrade Grumpy]

35. You have to read the media critically.

I find RT quite credible when it comes to what the Russian government is thinking. Since it is a voice of the Russian government.

Not so much when reporting on the Ukraine conflict.

In this particular case, RT quoted a couple of people making outrageous claims. The quotes are probably accurate, and in that sense, RT is credible. But the quotes are not coupled with any opposing views, making RT less credible. I can believe RT accurately quoted these guys, without believing what they are saying.

All media have editorial perspectives that slant their reporting. It's our job to sift through it and figure it out.

[Spazito]

37. It sounds to me that you are saying reading a Russian propaganda rag...

gives you insight into what Putin wants the Russian people to believe. A propaganda rag isn't media, rt.com is for distributing propaganda.

"I can believe RT accurately quoted these guys, without believing what they are saying.

RT is not credible in any way, it is the Russian version of Fox news.

[Comrade Grumpy]

39. I also pay attention to Fox News. It's good to know what the different slants are.

RT is a media outlet. I don't know if you have it on cable, but if you do, check it out sometime. They have lots of reporting on things that don't have anything to do with Putin or Ukraine, and they're more credible on those things. Kind of like how Al Jazeera has a certain slant on Mideast affairs, but still produces lots of credible reporting on other topics.

And if may behoove us to know what Putin wants the Russian people to believe. Back in the day, Kremlinologists pored over every word of Pravda. That doesn't mean we believe it.

[Spazito]

42. The issue is credibility...

Neither RT or Fox has any. RT is a propaganda outlet, full stop. I don't watch FOX, right wing propaganda isn't my thing neither is Russian propaganda.

[Comrade Grumpy]

43. I just went in for breakfast and turned on the news.

CNN had Paul Begala and Newt Gingrich talking inside baseball.

I didn't check out Fox.

Al Jazeera had coverage of fighting in Iraq and Yemen.

RT had a story about the controversy over Black Piet in the Netherlands. A pretty even-handed report, laying out the issues and talking to people with various viewpoints.

The ability to have a nuanced view is helpful.

You don't like Russian propaganda, you don't like right-wing propaganda. I guess, when it comes to major media outlets, all you're left with is corporate propaganda. I look at all of them, critically.

[Spazito]

44. Propaganda is not nuanced, it is blatant...

If you do look at them critically then you will admit RT is, first and foremost, a propaganda outlet as is Fox. If you know they are propaganda outlets then, surely, their credibility is nil.

[Comrade Grumpy]

45. Meanwhile, we have a GD thread where everyone is saying mainstream news is propaganda.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025828770

Pick your poison, I guess. I sip at all of them, savor the flavors, and make my own judgments.

Yeah, RT is quite propagandistic--on some issues of interest to the Russian state. But it's also a 24 hour news channel that has to fill its airtime, and quite a bit of it is unobjectionable reporting. (Okay, they do do their best to find stories about how bad America is, but so does DU.)

[Spazito]

46. Great attempt at switching the subject...

lol at this:

&quot Okay, they do do their best to find stories about how bad America is, but so does DU.)"

Who knew DU was considered media!

[Comrade Grumpy]

49. That's really a minor point, isn't it?

RT tends to run stories that make America look bad. It's easy. There are plenty of them out there.

No, DU isn't media, but it's a media aggregator. And there are lots of posts from lots of sources with stories that make American look bad.

Speaking of switching the subject...

[Spazito]

51. The topic was the credibility, or lack of, RT...

which, somehow, you seem to think is addressed by posting a DU link on media as well as thinking DU was comparable to RT. That is a complete switch of subject which I pointed out.

I understand the difficulty in trying to give RT any credibility, you have my sympathy for the difficult task you have taken on.

[Ravenna44]

60. Well said

It would be nice if knowledgable people wanted to compile a list of foriegn news sources and their various backers and biases.

For example: anyone can spot right off that the Fars news from Iran is laughable. But Today's Zaman in Turkey fooled me for a long time, and I still can't figure out the slant of the British papers. Open invitation to any international types who want to take on this challenge and post a media guide.

[UglyGreed]

31. SMH

then I do this

[zappaman]

33. "RT is watched now by over 50 million US households. It is the ANTI-FOX network."

"Which is why I have serious questions about those who are attempting to discredit and still claiming to be 'liberals'."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4363923

[msanthrope]

38. I didn't even have to click the link to see who posted it. nt

[Ykcutnek]

41. If it were up to me, RT's DC headquarters would be padlocked.

And their American fan base airdropped over Moscow.

Don't vote for me. I would rain down tyranny on idiots and assholes.

[Comrade Grumpy]

58. Don't worry. I tend not to vote for would-be dictators.

[CJCRANE]

47. The article didn't mention Obama.

It's like people who say "So you think Bush did 9/11?", when virtually no one thinks that. That's a way of simplifying things into absurdity.

FWIW I have a Kurdish acquaintance who expressed similar views to me as are in the article.

[Blue_Tires]

48. I'm convinced some of RT's people have been regular posters here...

And this is the part where I'd usually raise the obvious questions about Glenn Greenwald's cozy past arrangements with RT, but that's not my business and no one here is in the mood to hear them anyways..

[kentuck]

50. I refuse to allow myself to believe it is a CIA operation..

Contrary to my gut feelings.

[Historic NY]

56. RT is about as reliable at WN Daily

its bills itself a news for free people.

[NCTraveler]

66. RT is a very important and credible outlet.....

if viewed with intelligence. Most of us are fully aware that it is a Russian propaganda outlet. Those who aren't aware are outliers and insignificant overall. They are one hundred percent credible as a propaganda outlet and should be viewed as such. Putin has numerous outlets and all should be monitored for different reasons. I think RT is important not for the news, but to see what the Kremlin wants the world to see coming from them. It is an important part of the picture. You seem to be preaching to those who think RT is a legitimate news source. Lay down with the dog, wake up with fleas. RT is a very credible state run propaganda outlet. It is a slight of hand version of the White House Briefing Room. Its stories are credible in the sense they are a direct message from the Kremlin.