The US, IS and the conspiracy theory sweeping Lebanon … Is America behind the creation of the Islamic State? … The BBC's Suzanne Kianpour, in Beirut, looks at the latest conspiracy theory doing the rounds in Lebanon. "In the Middle East, conspiracy theories are in our blood," one former Lebanese official said over lunch in a restaurant in central Beirut. He was referring to the latest talk of the town: the United States is behind the creation of the Islamic State group (formerly known as Isis, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) and Hillary Clinton admitted it in her book "Hard Choices". As Islamic State (IS) militants advanced into Lebanon last week – spreading terror into the village of Arsal, bordering Syria, and driving hundreds out of their homes – whispers pinned the blame for their actions on the US. Horrific videos of IS atrocities against Lebanese Armed Forces circulated on the internet. – BBC
Dominant Social Theme: The idea that the US is engaged in a conspiracy is ridiculous.
Free-Market Analysis: This is a very interesting article because it shows the Anglosphere intel services are losing the ability to create realistic promotions.
We are not surprised because we've been writing about this trend for years. Our perception is that the Anglosphere is undermining secular administrations and putting Islamic republics in their place.
But those implementing these memes are fighting back and this BBC article is an example of the kind rebuttal that is necessary. That doesn't make it convincing, though.
Here's some more:
So did the theory that America is behind the existence and emboldening of the group. To back up their claim, conspiracy theorists online pointed to a powerful piece of "proof": the word of Hillary Clinton – the former US secretary of state widely expected to make a bid for the presidency. Dispelling rumours Screenshots of supposed "excerpts" from her book spread far and wide on social media in Lebanon, claiming the US created IS to instil instability in the region for American gain.
… "Such theories abound, largely because Washington has shown a propensity for outsourcing regime change. Support for insurgent groups in that context is certainly not a new practice and, as of late, has not been a particularly effective one," says Octavius Pinkard, a Brussels-based specialist in foreign policy analysis and Middle East politics, who has been conducting fieldwork
… Recently, the narrative on the streets of Beirut has increasingly been that Hezbollah won't let IS get to the Lebanese capital, not "America will help us." "Most people here believe the US and Saudi are one and when it comes strictly down to oil money, the ultimate benefactor from the whole IS debacle is Saudi/the US. As history has taught us, it is usually the benefactors who are the instigators," says Amer Murad, a native of Beirut.
"An important development that we have seen is the collaboration between the Lebanese Army and Hezbollah in their efforts to protect Lebanon from threats posed by the Syrian civil war spilling over into Lebanese territory," Octavius Pinkard says. As the conflict in Syria/Lebanon evolves, so does the perception of Washington. And it appears the Hezbollah/Damascus/Tehran trio is winning the propaganda battle. However, when Obama announced airstrikes against IS in Iraq on Thursday, love for the US returned to Facebook.
"I've never been happier for American intervention," one Lebanese user posted. Perhaps it may be too soon to say if US popularity in Lebanon might recover based on their progress in Iraq, but at the moment, America appears to be suffering a PR crisis among the people normally supportive of it.
We can draw many conclusions from the above. Mainly we can see that trust is draining away from US manipulations. Divide and conquer is not working so well these days. We've predicted this, of course, in numerous articles going back many years.
Our point was that this was a strategic operation and one that was implemented purposefully over a long period of time. As for Saudi Arabia, the idea that it is anything but a virtual fiefdom of the US is surely inaccurate. We've written about this as well.
And as we've pointed out, Saudi Arabia's leadership is also intimately tied to the radical Sunni Wahhabist movement. This is obvious if one believes that Anglosphere leadership is determined – as we've explained – to spread a polarized form of radical Sunni Islam throughout the Middle East and are thus tacitly encouraging Wahhabism.
If Syria falls, the Anglosphere will complete a "virtuous" circle: Western intel will have succeeded in placing radical Sunni Islamic governments throughout the Middle East. The strategy is to present the idea that radical Islam is progressing. Thus, it becomes an enemy of the West that can justify the authoritarian crackdowns that are now, unfortunately, taking place.
In an article entitled, "Western Elites Secretly Still Building Islam?" we pointed out that the best way to control domestic unrest was to create an outside enemy.
Islam served as the chosen enemy in the 21st century just as it served as a foil during the Crusades. It is being installed in both the Middle East and Africa and surely with the expansion of ISIS (IS) in Iraq. This expansion recreates a larger Islamic threat and it is no wonder that this is seen as a purposeful strategy.
ISIS is an outgrowth of Al Qaeda, which was active in Libya. And Al Qaeda was initially a US creation, developed to confront Russia in Afghanistan. Who really is surprised to hear about this "conspiracy theory" in Lebanon, given the history of these organizations?
The "rumors" are a logical outgrowth of what seems to be going on in this part of the world – and the Anglosphere intel agencies that are endlessly involved in these sorts of operations.