Who is funding ISIS?

Post Reply New Topic

Call it theorycrafting but I'm seeing a disturbing pattern from all this.

We're seeing that ISIS is 'miraculously' gaining capability not only in military areas but also in government systems. This is really odd.

Military capability is not the troops trained by US and friendly governments before ISIS became ISIS since that training was limited to the front-line soldier and low level leadership. They never received training in what you would consider general+ rank (the command of large forces, logistics, etc). They could not be gaining this capability from high ranking military officers that defected to them since those would be from islamic nations that have chronic poor leadership (basically the high ranks get their rank because of political and money moving not because of their competence).

Government systems is the ability to set up functioning government systems and economy. Unless ISIS leaders all have PhD's in economics and such it is very unusual for a region overrun by violence and 'captured' territory to keep functioning economically... since there is a breakdown of transit of goods and people, the banking system is disrupted and of the logistics of food/electric energy/fuel/taxes. Even if it was done by force (as Germany did during WW2 and the USSR post-WW2) it takes some time for these systems to come back up. But they seem to not have. Very odd.

Iran/Saudis/wealthy arab nations would not be providing this aid due to ideological and 'practical' reasons (aka they'd be funding their own downfall). So, that means there is an influence from outside the muslim/arab world. I would say the only nations capable of providing upper-level military experience is China, India or Russia. It makes no sense for India to do this... China would be wrecking its own oil supply from the middle east which it is utterly dependent upon.

That leaves Russia. The timing is rather opportune for them as well. Syria has been a close ally of the USSR in the middle east and when the civil war broke out there, Russia was looking at the possibility of losing Syria to the 'west' (or at worst, becoming a state that did not need Russia like Assad did). Seeing Assad was unlikely to hold onto power, Russia stops being so vocal about their support for him.. this is around Dec-Jan. The proto-ISIS group of AL-Q at this time are but another 'gang' operating in the region.

Then in February... two remarkable things happened. Early February ISIS breaks off from AL-Q and the Crimean crisis begins when the 'pro-russian militia' start taking over Crimea.
Around March you have Russian troops in the Crimean border and ISIS starts to make gains inside Syria.
Between April and May... East Ukraine starts to get its own 'pro-russian' militia troubles and Ukrainian troops are sent in...clashes, etc. Meanwhile in Syria ISIS has built up to impressive numbers and capability..somehow.
June sees ISIS start to rampage through Syria and Iraq but it is having trouble dealing with local defenses.
July to August you see a sudden surge in ISIS as well as 'rebel Ukraine' capability, materiel and leadership.. Russian troops are sent into the Ukraine. From June to August ISIS has been inexplicably quickly getting government systems running.
Now, as things 'heat' up in the middle east, Russia is suddenly starting to talk about puppet statehood of the east ukraine and 'nuclear' this and that.

This... is nothing more than classic cold war proxy war and landgrabs. Something Putin is very familiar with.

I think Russia has been providing ISIS with field experts in military and civilian fields (providing war materials would be too easy to spot by the west) and has set up deals with ISIS for economic boosts in the middle east once ISIS takes over. It is no secret the wealthy arab nations (saudis/kuwait/dubai/Qatar,etc) prefer to deal with the west than with Russia. So removing them is a good thing for Russia (plus gaining all that oil wealth). On top of that, Russia removes the 'west' from its influence in the middle east and practically will have Israel under its thumb (Russia will not allow ISIS to overrun Israel... because Israel will definitely nuke the entire middle east before it falls). On top of that Russia gained Crimea during this whole two-fronts (for the west) crisis and now that ISIS is starting to threaten Europe and the US they will gain most if not all of the Ukraine.

Putin knows the EU has no testicles left and they know the US cannot afford any form of prolonged conflict in either region. With very little risk and large gains, Russia now knows that NATO has proven to be as ineffective as the UN.

IF NATO forces amass in the Ukraine border it is likely Russia will simply wait until ISIS forces Europe/US forces to get entangled defending Israel or the wealthy arab nations....and then have his way. If NATO doesn't show up, he takes Ukraine and becomes buddy-buddy with north-africa encompassing friendly government (ISIS) ... and he knows Europe is sandwiched between a Russia hungry for territory and islamic nutcakes trying to take over Europe (especially with the increased disruption of constant terror attacks/threats that would be happening... Europe has an islamic 5th column within due to their silly immigration policies).

The spooky thing is, Russia is not in any position to prevent ISIS from attacking Israel... so things are likely to either end up with Russia knocking out Israeli nuke sites (hello Crimean bases!) and starting a world war.. or Israel getting overrun and punching the pyrrhic victory button and the middle east glows for a few thousand years.

A recent article in the Independent has been illuminating.

One of the issues it raises is the payment of ransoms by western governments which has been covered up by them - the monies are transferred by a series of proxies and written off as "development aid" on national budget sheets. The current value of a hostage has increased to about US $10 million. This is not small scale - it has been established that Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland have all been involved.

However oil is a bigger earner for Isis as it now controls 60% of Syria's oil assets and seven production facilities in Iraq. The oil is traded through a network of middlemen and criminal gangs, generating an estimated US $2 million a day. 30,000 barrels a day are sold to Jordan, Kurdistan and Turkey.

Those and other income streams from looting, extortion, smuggling and sympathiser funding indicate that ISIS is becoming very much wealthier very quickly and that the West is censoring information on a considerable scale.

Surely djihadists from isis had some of the weapons and money the us, uk and france, among others, have been pouring in the region. But i think the sectarian and ethnic aspects of the conflict also have their importance.

On an ideological point of view Isis is a dejection of wahabism which is a cousin to sunnism. Persians shias and arabs sunni/wahabi have been fighting for more than a thousand year and it happens that in the region of irak isis is operating sunnis are a majority. When you listen to what Isis say their more important targets are the shias populations.

That potentially means grassroots support from a large part of the local population (whithout even mentionning other methods to gain approval such as beheading or deporting those who do not agree)

That could partly explain how easily they gained control of large areas when some of the mainly sunni locals garrisons chose to cooperate instead of fighting for the pro-shia central government of irak. In the meantime isis picked up some of the big guns uncle sam gave to the iraki government for christmas, and also oil, liquidities ect...

This could be the reason why they had operational infrastructures so quickly., either by gaining the support of locals government officers spontaneously or through coercition following the sudden surrendering/collapse of government forces.

However it does seems very smart for a bunch of obscure knuckleheads, they might have had counselling to plan all that. In my opinion that could have come from factions in the petromonarchies of the golf or russia

hah forgot to mention that Turkey is a NATO member and they're on the front line of ISIS should it start to spread north..... you can bet that right now Putin is trying to get ISIS to get NATO attention in Turkey so he can dilute NATO forces further.

Russia is funding ISIS - their uprising started just at the moment of maximum escalation of Russian-Ukrainian war so Russia wanted NATO to have another serious difficulty and could share less recourses with the Ukrainian army. Look videos - both Hamas fighters in Israel and ISIS combatants very often have new Russian AK-101 assault rifles. And it is almost impossible to buy them from Russia without government agreement.
Besides that Russia doesn't recognise ISIS, Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organzations and often invite their representatives to high-level talks and negotiations. And support of those "anti-american fighters" is really high in Russian society. I know because I live in Russia now.

How things change. I'm thinking of Iran and its current relationship with the US: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" as the old saying goes.