US legalizing ISIL de facto - ANALYSIS
The State Department’s dangerous policy
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) chose a peculiar method to increase the influence of the US Department of State’s report dated June 25 on public opinion. On that day, the radio’s website gave the first presentation of the report as follows: “ISIL, China, Russia, Iran, and Azerbaijan were strongly criticized. In its report, the US State Department designated Islamic State (IS) militants, the Russian, Iranian and Azerbaijani governments at the forefront of human rights violations” (http://www.azadliq.org/content/article/27090349.html).
Azerbaijan allegedly standing alongside Iran, Russia, China, and even ISIL about the situation of human rights must irritate even the most passive citizens and encourage them to take anti-government position. To be honest, the original version of the report showed such a presentation is wholly wrong. It became clear that names of countries with especially dangerous situation are named in the report’s preamble part and in Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech but Azerbaijani is not mentioned at all (http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/#wrapper).
Azerbaijan’s name is mentioned in different chapters of the report. Although there was some unfair criticism, the country was not equalized with ISIL. Also, Azerbaijan is not categorized as countries with especially dangerous situation. However, the fact that RFE/RL is an agency of the US Congress suggests the provocation is no coincidence. The provocation first seems to be aimed against Azerbaijan but it becomes clear that a global plan is hidden in the matter.
Attempt to legalize ISIL
Along with reports on human rights, the U.S. Department of State also prepares and disseminates lists of terrorist organizations that are drawing the world into a peril (http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm). When speaking about ISIL, everyone imagine it as a bloodthirsty terrorist organization. Even the US is pursuing a policy against this group in the name of “countering terrorism”.
ISIL was included in the State Department’s 2014 report on terrorism (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/239631.pdf). In 2015, without any explanation, corrections are being made to the political course: It is not explained on the basis of what principles ISIL was put on the list of established states. Does it mean in fact an attempt to legalize ISIL de facto?
The dark side of US-ISIL relationship
In late 2014, Iranian expert on security, professor Mohammad Marandi put forward an interesting thesis: The US is fighting against ISIL, but ISIL is waging war against all with US-made weapons. Can anyone explain the reason? (http://russian.rt.com/article/51250). Experts, taking into account the complicated political situation between the US and Iran on that time, demonstrated a skeptical attitude toward Marandi’s thesis, but the developments indicated that the number of those who agree with the thesis is increasing in Europe. Gen Vincent Desportes, former head of France's War School, claimed in his speech at the French parliament that ISIL was created by the US (http://www.bvoltaire.fr/alaindebenoist/letat-islamique-ete-cree-par-les-etats-unis,157924), clarifying the complicated situation around the issue. French politician Capitaine Martin made a statement on the reasons for the establishment of ISIL by the US: After the collapse of communism, the US was in need of creating a hostile image. The enemy was found in September 2001 – terrorism. Iraq's Shiite prime minister al-Maliki, who came to power after Saddam's ouster, was unable to ensure the “oil” interests of the US. Following al-Maliki’s failure to ensure the US interests to buy cheap oil, Exon Mobile began talks with Barzani, but the US continued seeking new alternative partners. So, ISIS joined the game. (http://www.legrandsoir.info/comment-et-pourquoi-les-etats-unis-ont-cree-l-etat-islamique.html). Capitaine Martin claims that via ISIL operations in Syria and Iraq, the US plans to split the Arabic world and establish a new state founded on terrorism in the region. Military specialists also support the thesis of ISIS’ being a US-backed project and prove it with scientific arguments. Professor from University of Ottawa, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization Michel Chossudovsky wrote in his “War and Globalization. The Truth Behind September 11” book: “From the military point of view, it is very easy to bomb the ISIL convoy which doesn’t possess air defense weapons. In a Syrian desert, it is easy to destroy the Toyota convoys. For about a year, the ISIL positions have been bombed, but there is no result. For comparison, the bombing of Yugoslavia have lasted for three months. So one can conclude that the US bombing campaign doesn’t serve to destruction of ISIL. The fight against terrorism is a fiction: Washington is the main sponsor of terrorism. The expert claims that ISIL is not only protected but also funded by the US and its allies” (http://www.mondialisation.ca/la-fausse-guerre-dobama-contre-le-groupe-etat-islamique-protege-par-les-etats-unis-et-leurs-allies/5432512).
The latest report of the State Department can be regarded as a financial support for ISIL, following a military and financial support. The ISIL’s inclusion in the list of world’s thousand-year old states is the beginning of steps taken for its de facto recognition.
Related news releases
- 13.03.2017Trace of "Armenian Connection" in Strasser fantasy
- 06.03.2017The Armenian Connection: How a secret caucus of MPs and NGOs, since 2012, created a network within PACE to hide violations of international law - ANALYSIS
- 19.09.2016Failed rallies that proved unworthy of being called ‘mass’ - ANALYSIS
- 24.08.2016Referendum Act: The Cabinet of Ministers could not change to locomotive of economic reforms – ANALYSE
- 24.06.2016Tseghakronism – fascist doctrine of Garegin Nzhdeh - ARTICLE
- 08.06.2016More people displaced than at any time since WW2- Global Peace Index
- 07.05.2016Sargsyan’s failed attempt of demarche against Kremlin - ANALYSIS
- 13.04.2016Helsinki Final Act – the main factor in breaking Karabakh deadlock - ANALYSIS
- 07.04.2016‘Four-day war’: Changed status quo, balance against Armenia
- 02.04.2016Azerbaijani president’s visit to Washington: Maximal use of all opportunities of essential platform for dialogue - ANALYSIS
- 11.02.2016Turkey and Israel: Rapprochement arising from mutual need - ANALYSIS
- 22.09.2015Russian military support to Syria: A second Afghanistan?
- 11.09.2015European Parliament “annexing” Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia - ANALYSIS
- 09.09.2015Europe’s migration policy: Is Schengen area regime being abolished? - ANALYSIS
- 17.06.2015The Guardian and principles of journalism - ANALYSIS
- 10.06.2015National Endowment for Democracy - generator of coups and chaos - ANALYSIS
- 09.06.2015BBC: Anti-Azerbaijan campaign deriving from Islamaphobia
- 22.05.2015‘Good’ and ‘bad’ separatists classified by West, Azerbaijan’s right to change partners - ANALYSIS
- 27.04.201524 April: Who won? Who lost? - ANALYSIS
- 18.04.2015Human Rights Watch – joint organization of Soros and Obama - ANALYSIS
- 16.04.2015European Parliament’s resolution incapable of changing realities in the region - ANALYSIS
- 02.04.2015“Georgian expert card” against Georgia - ANALYSIS
- 13.02.2015Southern Gas Corridor: unique project of common interests to all parties - ANALYSIS
- 16.01.2015Azerbaijan-US relations: Tension after returning to bipolar world order - ANALYSIS
- 10.12.201421st member of G20: Azerbaijan - ANALYSIS
- 05.12.2014Putin's visit to Turkey: messages, offers, opportunities ... - Analysis
- 03.12.2014Panoramic notes (second part) - ANALYSIS
- 02.12.2014Panoramic notes (first part) – ANALYSIS
- 01.12.2014Pope: Against Turkey, Beside Armenia – ANALYSIS
- 28.11.2014Conflicting interests of Turkey and Iran against background of Syrian crisis - ANALYSIS
- 24.11.2014Indirect diplomacy: Turkey’s plan of third border crossing point with Armenia - ANALYSIS
- 14.11.2014Downed Armenian helicopter consequence of Yerevan’s military-political provocation - ANALYSIS - PHOTOSESSION
- 17.09.2014How will EU sanctions affect Russian economy? – Comment
- 30.06.2014Two Europes, double Europe…. - ANALYTICS
- 14.04.2014Actual international view as a result of the occupation of Azerbaijani territories
- 10.09.2013The Republic of Azerbaijan: A Model of Good Governance - ANALYSIS
- 04.09.2013Will Armenia’s choosing Customs Union change Europe’s attitude towards Nagorno Karabakh conflict? - ANALYSIS
- 14.08.2013Five visits balancing Azerbaijan’s foreign policy course - ANALYSIS
- 13.06.2013Nagorno Karabakh – “new Afghanistan” of the region - ANALYSIS
- 09.04.2013Whose future was determined in Baku: South Caucasus and Central Asia, or European economic area? - ANALYSIS
- 02.07.2015Expectations arising from a default in Greece - ANALYSIS
- 10.07.2015Representatives of Azerbaijani community in Nagorno-Karabakh will also address Chatham House, says FM
- 26.08.2015Who benefits from Greece’s exit from Eurozone? - ANALYSIS
- 22.06.2015Rebecca Vincent – problem of anti-Azerbaijani network - ANALYSIS
- 22.06.2015Western technologist’s lies proved by figures
- 18.06.2015Democracy and human rights lessons from totalitarian Poland under democracy guise - ANALYSIS