Friday, February 27, 2015

Tagged under: ,

Who are DAISH-ISIS and What are Their Motives?

Sajjad Amin Bangash shares his perspective on Islamic State.  Sajjad Amin Bangash is a Lecturer in International Politics and Economics, Human Rights Activist and Political Activist for PTI (Imran Khan party- Freedom and Justice for All). He blogs at Sajjad Khan Bangash's blog.

image
Islamic State


DAISH-ISIS is an abbreviated term for Islāmic State for Iraq and Syria is the hot debated issue everywhere around the world.

But what exactly is the real picture of it and who they are?

Its primary aims and what threat it poses for the security of Pakistan or to the World?
These are such concerned questions which spell haunted challenges to every human of the world.

Let’s have a look at it.

As the name indicates that apparently ISIS is created for carrying out extremist activities inside Iraq and Syria but as a common notion that terrorism has no boundaries and no religion linkages. Once the giant gets out of the bottle, then it becomes difficult to catch him and cage him back in the bottle. Moreover, the slaughtering of innocent humans and carrying inhuman acts of bloodshed, in fact has nothing to do with Islam or any other religion.

These ISIS insurgents as well several other groups around the world have ignited a ‘fire’ of hatred all over the world.

 Islam gives full right to the convict and criminals to be heard in open court under Qazi (Islamic Judiciary and Juries).
 
ISLAM AND THE CONCEPT OF PUNISHMENT

The main question is this: before deciding whether or not a criminal should be punished, we must determine the extent of his responsibility for the offence he committed. It is to be noted that Islam takes this into account when it considers the question of crime and punishment.

Islam never prescribes punishments haphazardly nor does it execute these without due consideration. In this respect Islam has a unique theory which combines the best of both worlds: the communist as well as the individualistic theories.  Islam holds the balance of justice in the right manner and insists on examining all conditions and circumstances connected with the offence. On studying a crime Islam takes into account two considerations at the same time; the viewpoint of the criminal and that of the community against which aggression took place. In the light of such considerations Islam prescribes the fair punishment which is in accordance with the dictates of sound logic and wise reasoning and which must not be affected by delinquent theories and national or individual whims.

Islam imposes preventive punishments which may appear cruel or coarse if viewed superficially or without proper consideration. But Islam does not execute such punishments unless it ascertains that the crime was not justifiable or that the criminal was not acting under any obligation.

However, what we see is that these ISIS terrorists behead people without any proper investigations and cases to be heard and declare the punishments which is a direct and obvious contradictions to the teachings and principles of Islam.

DAISH declares the punishment immediately and execute the innocent people straight away. Therefore, it gives us a clear indication that this terror group are defaming and malign the name of Islam and carrying a hidden objectives to blame Islam and Muslims all over the world.

image

The Imam of Kaaba has given ‘Fitwa’ (A religios declaration) against “DAISH” to be terrorists and they have nothing to do with Islam and Muslims.

DAISH is in fact, carrying a secret mission to defame and vilify Islam and Muslims by conducting such inhuman, heinous crime of barbarism, cruelty, murderousness and savagery has nothing to do with Islam.

While Islam, gives the teachings of patience, love, care, forbearance, respect to humanity, women, elders and children.

The Islamic Way of Life

The Islamic way of life encompasses acts of worship, the doing of good deeds to all living things and the opposition to injustice and evil.

Do Muslims Believe in Violence?

One of the most damaging claims against the Islamic religion is that it promotes or actively encourage the use of violence in the promotion of its goals.

 This claim is bolstered by those who lift a handful of verses from the Qur’an out of their context and present that as proof. In context, however, those verses talk about specific situations that faced the Muslim community of the time, and involved vastly superior forces that were seeking to vanquish the small monotheistic movement known as Islam.

The Qur’an puts it this way:

“And why shouldn’t you fight in the cause of God and in the cause of those who, being weak, are mistreated: the men, women and children whose only cry is, “Our Lord! Deliver us from this land whose people are oppressors. Send us someone from You who will protect us, and send us someone from You who will help!” [4:75]
Any battles fought under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) were defensive in nature and occurred only after hostilities were already declared against the Muslims. The Qur’an and the policies of Muhammad delineated the proper justifications for war, and also imposed rules for its humane conduct. These rules include such things as non-combatants are not to be harmed, wanton destruction is forbidden, quarter must be given to surrendering troops, and peace negotiations when offered must be accepted.

When critics of Islam use the few verses of the Qur’an that talk about war out of context, they are just as dishonest as the few extremists in our midst who also twist the meanings and give them an interpretation that is unknown in traditional Islam.

The truth of the matter is that the turmoil you see emanating from the Muslim world is not based on religion, but rather on serious political grievances and issues of social justice. Sometimes religion is used as a cloak for this or that cause, but the underlying factors that fuel the conflicts are no different than those that cause upheaval and revolution in any other part of the world.

DAISH is using all out force inside Iraq and Syria while Israel lies just on the edge of borders to Syria. So the question conflicts the logics of the minds is that these ‘DAISH’ insurgents still haven’t even thought of marching towards Israel.

The authentic sources claim that the ‘so called Khalifa of DAISH’ has taken proper training in Israel and a large number of ‘DAISH’ terrorists have been trained by Israel and US Army deployed in Mediterranean waters.

 Similar, MOSAD and CIA are funding them through hidden curtain’s channel. At one side, ‘DAISH’ are playing the ‘bloodshed’ game of killing innocent people in the middle of Syria and Iraq while on the other hand, they’re knocking the doors of comparatively powerful countries such as Saudia Arabia and Turkey as from time to time they conduct tertiary levels of terrorist activities in Saudia Arabia.

Let’s see who will be the prime beneficiary of this game of destruction, bloodshed and fracturing the regional stature after destabilizing several biggest Islamic states?

image

Apparently, Israel is sitting calmly watching all this melodrama being played around in its surroundings and giving an opined notion that instead of direct confrontation with its neighboring countries, let these insurgents play their role first to weaken their military might and destabilizing their economies to certain level that they won’t be able to defend the minimum level of skirmishes, onslaughts and later the dream of ‘greater Israel’ in a unified way, will come true.

Similarly, United States is continuously selling the weapons and arms on a massive level to several middle east countries-grabbing bags of dollars.

image

Besides, DAISH is equally recruiting people from Western countries and now, several European countries, USA and several Asian countries have witnessed that citizens from these countries have migrated to DAISH and became their part.

So, what’s the real picture and intention behind this all ‘bloodshed game'; the story is unfolded and that’s these DAISH insurgents are carrying secret agenda duly assigned by foreign masters and the ultimate victims are innocent people of the world.
On the other hand, Talibans have amassed havoc on the innocent people of Pakistan. In the last 10 years, these terrorist groups have exploded detonating explosives and suicide bombing activities in Mosques, Churches, schools, markets, military personnel and premises which have taken the lives of more than 100,000 innocent civilians of Pakistan.

While I’m writing this article, I’m watching Mr. Obama speech in Washington D.C. on ‘International conference against terrorism’ in which he says that:

these terrorist groups are targeting and killing innocent people of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria don’t represent Islam. They misrepresent and misuse Islam for their own malicious purposes and aims. They don’t belong to Pakistan or any other Muslim country.

Thanks to the brave Pakistan Army which has taken stern measures against terrorist groups in the Western borders of Pakistan. In a recent operation taken by Pakistan Army in which they’ve almost destroyed the sanctuaries and networks of terrorists hidding in northern Waziristan areas. Besides, this operation network has been further enhanced throughout the country in which, Pakistan Army have arrested, hanged several terrorists and destroyed the networks of terrorists.

Terrorism of any kind is a dangerous threat to the peace of the world and together, we the people of the world can destroy it.

Let’s get united against all these perpetrators and make this world a beautiful and peaceful place to live in.

33 comments :

AM said...

Sajjad,

thanks for sharing your writing with TPQ. I find your stuff interesting and informative, even where I might disagree. We will have readers who strongly disagree with you and who will robustly challenge your perspective. But the bulk of them will respect your right to hold a different opinion (that is why they come here) although they will not respect the opinion you hold. But that is what debate is about

DaithiD said...

I keep hearing that Islam was the repository of the sciences before the rest re-discovered it, perhaps they should of spent a little longer with Aristotelian logic: a statement and its opposite cannot simultaneously be true.
How can ISIS contradict the principles of Islam when large swathes of Islam are based on observations and anecdotes about the perfect man (self described Prophet) Mohammed, who murdered people, kept sex slaves, repeatedly waged war on his enemies. It’s a key point because there is no allowable context for his actions, this is what Muslims measure morality against in the past, present and future.
Does the author believe America, directly and through its proxies (Israel !!) is at war with Islam? If the answer is yes, then the horrors we see in Syria and Iraq today are scripturally mandated. There was a ComRes poll that confirmed a quarter of British Muslims also support this interpretation, so to dismiss it as marginal or extremist is an error at best, and wilfully deceitful at worst. One area I might agree with this author though is, I want everyone to read the Koran and Hadiths too, I am absolutely certain that when potential critics don’t have the death sentence of apostasy hanging over them, this argument will be carried by more.
Furthermore, I will be interested if this debate is allowed to be had on its own terms, or will people try to equivocate (e.g. the bible is bad too) or smear (e.g. you must be a racist) to detract from the main rebuttal.

tiarna said...

"Islam never prescribes punishments haphazardly nor does it execute these without due consideration."

So your argument is ISIS don't savoir the moment they behead people too quickly! In your view ISIS is too haphazard and less considerate that other Muslim fanatics.

How about religious whacko's not prescribing any punishments at all? That would serve mankind and peace better than your crap of there being a better version of Islamic terrorism or genocide.

You do not sound like any improvement on what ISIS has to offer --beside you disagree with ISIS's quicker less calculated death than what can be devised by your brand of Islam.

AM said...

Sajjad,

my own view as you would understand is much closer to the views of the above two commenters than it is to your own. A religion that gets itself all worked up over what are often badly drawn cartoons seems to me to have serious problems that cannot be reduced to IS.

My view of religion is that it is basically evil.

Your views need discussed and hopefully you will continue to allow them feature here.

DaithiD said...

This article (im linking to) also has flaws, but at least tries to address the main points, rather than dodge them like the above one. If people are too lazy to do the digging themselves, I guess it will serve some purpose :

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Mary Marscal said...

Hi Sajjad Welcome to the Quill where all voices are represented without censorship...
Re Daesh (Daish) - it is from an Arabic verb meaning to oppress trample underfoot and is viewed as a pejorative by IS. A young boy was recently flogged for using the term Daesh when referring to IS in Syria.

Re ‘Moreover, the slaughtering of innocent humans and carrying inhuman acts of bloodshed, in fact has nothing to do with Islam or any other religion.’
IS is actually enacting literally teachings hadiths from the 7th century. It is all there in the Quran and other Islamic writings. So to say what they are doing has nothng to do with Islam does not make sense. The IS Manifesto clearly states they want Sharia and a Caliphate and restoration of the Ottoman Empire. Hence by default their actions are definitely linked to the teachings of Islam from centuries ago.

Caught in the middle of the horror are also millions of Muslims who want nothing more than for IS to disappear but what cannot disappear is the fact that the atrocities are clearly commended in parts of the Quran by Mohammed. It is up to imams to speak out against the enacting of these atrocities. I am well aware IS are killing Muslims as well – they are even killing their own commanders here and there and have to date executed 120 foreign fighters who went to join them then wanted to leave.

The commandersof IS are not profoundly stupid – they are far from that but swept up into an ideology like a cult… so profoundly driven by this ideology they believe it utterly.
There are 167 references to violent jihad in the Qu’ran Sajjad… and there are other teachings/sura as well..

NB Not all non Muslim don’t bother to read the Quran… and other Islamic teachings. I read much some years back and upon request from a Muslim work colleague took home a condensed version of the Quran and read it. As a Christian I do not wish any Muslim harm nor person of belief or non belief harm. But when one religion intends to impose its ideology on the world and destroy all else one must be honest to effect change… to stop atrocities one must face into the unpalatable realities and name them not sugar coat them, dumb them down. Slan

DaithiD said...

Mary,
I am pretty sure DAESH is just the Arabic acronym of ISIL/ISIL it doesn’t actually mean anything. Additionally I am sceptical as to the value of imams speaking out against tracts of the Koran , even if they could. Imams don’t have the same role in Islam as priests do in Christianity, and the type of literalists we are talking about are hostile to them anyway . I say ‘even if they could’ because the Koran is seen as the unadulterated word of God, the first version from ~1400 years ago is the same as the ones printed today, they would be inviting the accusation of apostasy which carries the death sentence as a penalty. They are aware of this problem, but what they choose to do is demonise critics via terms like Islamophobia, and hope that most people are frightened from investigating what is the Islamic basis of ISIS. I am Catholic, but I accept that people can be repulsed by the same practices I feel personally liberating. The term Islamophobia implies there is only one possible reaction to Islam : reverence. Any other reaction is based on a misunderstanding or prejudice. And this is the consensus among our scum politicians.

sean bres said...

Interesting article, what's to disagree with Tony? Check out the Snowden revelations on the 'Hornet's Nest' strategy and also the 'Yinon Plan' if you think any of the key ideas here are beyond the capabilities of imperialism

sean bres said...

The purpose of ISIS is to dismember and Balkanise Iraq and Syria as a prelude to 'Greater Israel'. Also read Hersh, whose opinion you say you value, on all of this. Check out his 'Redirection' and you might find the article we're discussing isn't far away at all. That you would seem to doubt the thinking behind it truly amazes me given all the information in the public domain on what's really going on in the Middle East. It's nothing but the same old colonial intervention in more sophisticated form. The violence though is as real as ever

sean bres said...

What we are really dealing with in Syria and Iraq is a tool that allows London and their Washington bully-boys to steal resources that belong to others - such as those oilfields ISIS have taken control of - in order to prop up their terminally failing economies. Israel itself is a creation of British imperialism designed for the same end - as is KSA. The people of Yemen are rising in demand of their legitimate rights, where is the UN? Where are your Human Rights Watch and your Paul Conroys - who to my utter disgust had a letter he penned his name to appear on this site. My stomach turned that day to think even the quill can be sucked in by the insidious agenda of MI6. This is nothing more than the outworking of Anglo-American imperialism - all of it. The sooner we realise everything is s rich man's trick the better

sean bres said...

When you think about it, a barbaric, supposedly Islamic, deeply repressive state already exists in the region, allied to whom eh? Why would another pose any great difficulty, isn't it more likely it would serve the same ends. It's time we realised there is a war going on for our very minds themselves and we're losing

AM said...

Sean,

Tiarna, I think, aptly summed it up

How about religious whacko's not prescribing any punishments at all?

sean bres said...

Come on Tony, when you gonna stop hiding behind religion, that sums nothing up at all and is entirely unconnected to the thrust of the argument set out in the piece. The point of the article is we're not in fact dealing with religious whackos, take off your blinkers and the incessant need to tackle this religion you bemoan, for it simply ain't got nothing to do with this. ISIS is a construct of imperialism tasked with the role of defaming Islam as the writer said. The task is also to create a terrorist entity near Israel's border capable of attracting extremists which in turn becomes the enemy and justifies intervention, it serves the strategic objectives of the Zionist project as it keeps the Arabs occupied. Ffs it's as old as the hills and for a man of your intelligence to stop at saying 'how about the religious whackos just stop meting out punishments', well, I just don't know what to say to that. But to me it seems easy and something to hide behind. Is that all you think this ISIS is, a crowd of barbarians operating on their own? Come on. Don't take my word for it, look at what Snowden has to say, Glenn Greenwald, Pepe Escobar and these commentators, a man of your mind is surely beyond the brainwashing of the bought and paid for media

AM said...

Sean,

hiding behind religion. I thought that was a description that better fitted yourself given you believe the guff and I most firmly do not.

I think you inhabit an intellectual world that is not mine and there is no reconciling the two. It has even got to the point where you are now going to tell me what I can and cannot see in a piece of writing, as if you have appointed yourself the author of meaning. That too is a sort of religious delusion. I see in it what DaithiD and Tiarna see in it, an argument made to mitigate the vileness that is practiced in the name of a deity. What the writer's take on ISIS happens to be is of less interest to me than the suggestion that it is somehow okay for religious whack jobs to set out societal norms by which the rest of us are compelled to live.

The real problem here in my view is that you have never really reconciled yourself to the fact that Bashir Assad is a war criminal and you are going to complain until such times as we will agree with you. You will be a long time complaining!

sean bres said...

Doubt someone got out of the wrong side of bed. My religious views do not come into how I look at geo-politics Anthony, but it seems yours do, to me you read as incapable of seeing past them. The war crimes of Bashar al-Assad - as those of Hafez, Saddam, Qaddafi or anyone else you care to mention - are another matter here, but just so I know what it is you're talking about, saying you wish to drag that up, what are these crimes you accuse him of - the specifics - and explain how they are in a separate category from some of the actions committed by the Provisional IRA. Are you now joining Raymond and Martin and suggesting they're criminals too? Or that Billy McKee, MacStiofain, O'Bradaigh and others, as commanding officers, were war criminals? The principle of universality would suggest you do. You want to have your cake and eat it and pointing fingers at me, that I wish to appoint myself the author of meaning, is a complete cop out. I have always been clear my support is for the people of Syria, who are the victims of a situation determined by outside powers, and any support for the regime in Damascus is predicated on their needs not those of Bashar al-Assad or anyone else. I don't need to reconcile anything and wish for nothing more in these conversations than to show that regardless of the brutality of the Assad regime and regardless of the religious dogma attributed to ISIS there are more important factors in the story here. By stopping short of taking these factors onboard and looking through a wider lens we give those behind this scheme exactly what they want - just enough cover to get away with the crime. All that aside, do you believe ISIS is an autonomous agency and not a useful tool, being sheltered by the British and Americans, or what is it you think here, that these are simply mindless fanatics? Even if they are mindless fanatics, which I don't dispute, do you think they operate according to their own strategic compass and are not receiving assistance from Britain and America? If they are then what is the greater evil? Strange how this force has been practically routed by the Kurds but can stand up to the sophisticated military machine of the Syrian regime and the missile attacks of the US. Pure fantasy. There are no meaningful missile strikes and arms 'destined' for the 'acceptable opposition' have been dropped to ISIS positions on over six occasions - by error of course according to the Foreign Office. That is not the opinion of a conspiracy theorist but admitted fact by the British government itself - even if you have to go beyond the six o'clock news on the BBC to find it. Without being propped up by outside powers ISIS would have been routed and disintegrated long ago. No matter, it will still be routed - and the sooner the better for all concerned

AM said...

Sean,

we have been through all this a million times.

One example, when Bashir Assad was the go to guy for the CIA torture teams. You are aware of it. This great bulwark against the US was torturing for them.

Did the IRA commit war crimes? Of course. The Disappeared, Kingsmill.

If you want to live in the curious intellectual world where you do, feel free. You will always find space here. But don't think people are obliged to waste their time trying to reason out what was never reasoned in.

DaithiD said...

Is that all you think this ISIS is, a crowd of barbarians operating on their own? Come on. Don't take my word for it, look at what Snowden has to say, Glenn Greenwald..

@ggreenwald Just to confirm, did Snowden ever say the ISIS chief al-Baghdadi was trained by Mossad? Hearing it all over FB

@sunny_hundal I've never heard him say any such thing, nor have I ever heard any credible source quoting him saying anything like that.

sean bres said...

When Freddie Scappaticci was torturing, with the full imprimatur of the Army Council, was that Army Council a body consisting of war criminals? Did any of it detract or lessen the role Britain played in the situation pertaining to the Six Counties and was that role to be excluded on that basis?

AM said...

Any action carried out with the approval of people on the AC that was a war crime makes the AC people responsible a war crime.

What happened to the last six hunger strikers to die was a massive crime. Was the AC guilty? No. Were the AC members who approved it behind the back of the council guilty? Of course.

The rest of your question is moonshine. You already know the answer.

Was Kingsmill an IRA war crime?
Was the Disappeared an IRA war crime.

sean bres said...

So why then stop at the crimes of Assad or the repressive nature of ISIS Anthony? If it's moonshine to ask whether you do or not in the case of Britain then why do you do so in the case of the article in question here, and the key argument it makes in terms of who is really responsible for the situation. In effect that's what you do by limiting the focus to the religious dogma of Islamic State, as though it were all simply a matter of them not wielding this repressive interpretation of Islam as law. Daithi I'm pretty sure I never mentioned Baghdadi, are you denying Snowden made revelations regarding the 'Hornets Nest' strategy?

sean bres said...

As far as that attempt to reconcile the Army Council's actions - and by extension those of the wider Provisional IRA - with your views on war crime Anthony I don't think you have succeeded in separating the two. The logical extension of your worldview can only be that the IRA leadership were war criminals - on that we will agree to disagree

sean bres said...

What I want, and have always wanted, is an end to the war in Syria - which itself gives rise to the terrible happenings ongoing in that country, in which all sides of course share in responsibility. But who is fuelling this war, who's keeping it going? Certainly not Bashar al-Assad or those in his government, they want peace. Those who are keeping Syria in a state of war and all that results from it are the problem here and that cannot be allowed to pass. If we allow it so then where will it end? Rest assured it'll not be in Syria

AM said...

I'll try again Sean:

Was Kingsmill a war crime?

Was disappearing people a war crime?

sean bres said...

I've never said they weren't and nor have I ever said Bashar al-Assad was not guilty of war crime either. I've argued throughout that these things need placed in their context and we need to recognise the bigger picture. None of those horrible things that happened here would have happened were it not for a war inflicted on the people here by an outside force and the same applies in Syria. That's all I've ever said. You though ignore all that and refuse to move beyond 'their religion is what's wrong first and foremost and we need go no further'

AM said...

I did not ask what you said or did not say. I asked were the two acts war crimes? I am no nearer an answer.

Context is alibi.

sean bres said...

Is this 'Anthony McIntyre 101: Mastering the art of deflection' - it's starting to read like it. You are the one talking about and defining war crime not me. What's unnerving is you cannot reconcile your position - which is to ignore context as irrelevant - with the actions of the Provisional IRA. Unless you are calling them war criminals

AM said...

Have a nice day Sean

sean bres said...

Fine with me, we'll leave it at that then

Henry JoY said...

"No man means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery and thought is viscous."

Henry B. Adams

pat murphy said...

War is in itself a crime so therefore acts which happen in the execution of that war are by association war crimes. Also actions which leave war inevitable can only be described as a worse war crime. Those who leave people with no alternative must go to the top of the list of guilty. The war here was fought not by war criminals but by and large by gullable pawns. They pay the price. Anthony,here you may find some comfort,those who are the cause might not pay in this life,and most don't,but I believe they will pay ten fold in the next,I hope anyway. The same applies in Syria. The rotten bastards behind the scenes are the real war criminals. One of the biggest in history was that fat cunt Churchill who they would have you believe was a saint. Yourself and Sean seem at odds here but you both have points which I think are correct,however I must say I would tend to agree more with Sean on this one. Hope you don't mind an "auld gull" stickin in his Penney's worth.

AM said...

Pat,

more than welcome to share your view. It matters not who you agree with.

Aggressive war is a war crime. Not every war falls into that category.

Nazi Germany waged aggressive war but not all the troops who fought for Germany were war criminals. The SS was declared a criminal organisation after the war but even they were not all criminals, at least not in the Waffen SS. The Police battalions of the SS were a different matter.

The Soviets were not fighting an aggressive war but inflicted massive war crimes with the rapes when they crossed into German territory in 1945.

You suggest a hierarchy of war criminal and I think you are right. The higher up the chain of command you are the greater the culpability. That is why Netanyahu and Assad must take the lion's share for what their regimes have done.

I don't believe in next lives.

Churchill was a serious war criminal, as was Bomber Harris. But Churchill distanced himself from Harris so that Harris would take the flak for the war crimes inflicted on the civilian population of Germany.

tiarna said...

Sean Bres

"ISIS is a construct of imperialism tasked with the role of defaming Islam as the writer said."

Well more accurately, the writer complains that ISIS does not behead or wipe out non-Muslims in the more acceptable ways that his brand of Islamic Genocidal radicals do: "haphazardly nor does it execute these without due consideration"

Do you really think this fuck wit is a nicer more intelligent guy than your average pseudo-Imperialist ISIS maniac??

Seriously?? You think Muslims hell bent on genocide of all non-muslims are only that way to serve the big bad imperialist West??

The writer of this blog is a radical muslim who clearly does not like being outdone by another bunch of radical muslims in the proper Islamic ways of savagely butchering people -mostly non-muslims. That is the sum total of the fuckers whole rant.

Hate the world Muslims are are only to willing and bale to 'defame' Islam all on their own - the bogey man excuse is just that, an excuse.

Sajjad Khan Bangash said...

I wrote this article in February 2015 and during that time, very few people around the world didn't know or even ready to accept to recognize that ISIS is the creation of US, British and Israel's intelligence agencies to expand their territorial hegemonic supremacy and particularly USA to pave ways to 'Greater Israel' and the proven fact that, Israel and US military are funding them behind the curtain.

Whatever, Tony Blair's confession on CNN yesterday has shocked the whole world as he accepted that 'Removing Saddam Hussein was a blunt mistake and a conduct of wrong intelligence given rise to ISIL'. Indeed, Tony Blair and George Bush played the chess here and eventually, led the Russians to balance it out.

The whole game of bloodshed is being played for power struggle in Middle East and Saudia Arabia is vehemently wrestling for more share of this supremacy.