While the White House keeps telling the world the tale about America’s pivotal role in the so-called “war on terror”, the people of the world want to know what role the US-led North Atlantic alliance is playing in the sponsoring and arming of the Islamic State (ISIL). Such tales, as well as Washington-backed propaganda campaigns about the “ever-growing threat of the Islamic State” have a common goal: to excuse the staggering expenditures on arms that the US military keeps burning through in order to satisfy a number of arms manufacturers. Yet, the White House is using terrorist attacks around the globe that were supposedly carried out by Islamist groups to carry on its own wars in the Middle East, subjecting the countries it doesn’t like to bombings and devastation.
How else could one explain the fact that a year into the fight against ISIL, initiated by Barack Obama himself, with a total of 60 counties that rallied under the banner of the so-called US coalition has nothing to brag about yet? Only Russia’s decision to finally launch airstrikes against radicals in Syria resulted in the destruction of oil smuggling infrastructure that had been providing ISIL with funding for years. In an attempt to save face, a national American broadcaster, PBS, aired on November 19 the footage of Russian strikes against ISIL in Syria, while claiming it was actually US forces carrying them out. It’s clear that the US propaganda machine has gone too far in order to fabricate evidence of a successful NATO campaign in Syria by the stealing of footage provided by Russia’s Defense Ministry. After all, how else would one justify the excessive funding on three thousand so-called advisers that have been training the “forces of the moderate Syrian opposition”, while there’s little more than a hundred of those left in Syria?
Speaking about the “real” anti-ISIL coalition, it turns out that for a year US generals have been struggling to fabricate intelligence and military reports to make them look good. They have not even begun fighting ISIL. The US military’s only real contribution to the situation on the ground was arms supplies to Islamists. Of course they didn’t do this on purpose, they just can’t seem to properly drop crates anymore, missing time and time again. The UK news portal Breitbart London has been openly mocking the harmless “air war” Obama has been waging against ISIL. After all, back in May, US Senator John McCain openly admitted that three out of four bombers involved in the operation in Syria return to their bases without ever dropping a single ordnance.
Much effort has been spent on persuading the casual reader that Washington and Ankara are relentlessly fighting the Islamic State back to back.
But finally, these masks have come off. The obvious role of Turkey in the smuggling and selling of Syrian and Iraqi stolen oil is no longer questioned by anyone. The Russian Ministry of Defense has already presented the international community with satellite and drone imagery of hundreds and hundreds of oil trucks heading to Turkey across ISIL-controlled territory to reach their destination at Turkish refineries and ports controlled by Erdogan’s family.
This information is confirmed by a study by two professors of the University of Greenwich, George Kiourktsoglou and Alec Coutroubis, tittled “ISIS Gateway To Global Crude Oil Markets”. Those two gentlemen established the route of stolen oil across Turkey to foreign markets. There’s not a glimpse of a chance that the ruling elites of Great Britain, Turkey, the United States and other NATO countries were not informed about such facts. Especially because, according to the conclusion of the above mentioned British professors, the caravans with stolen oil were reaching their destination at the Turkish port of Ceyhan, located an hour’s drive from the US military base at Incirlik. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the oil stolen by the Islamic State was supplied to numerous NATO allies, argues OpEd News.
Turkey and along with NATO forces are building up their military presence along the supply routes of the Islamic State in order to protect the radical militants from new strikes. Or are they again unable to see ISIS forces directly in their midst?
Martin Berger is a Czech-based freelance journalist and analyst