TheAltWorld 
Although there is no longer any reason for the jihadists to split themselves between Al-Qaïda and Daesh, the two organisations continue their war in the Greater Middle East. Paradoxically, it is now Al-Qaïda which runs a pseudo-State, the governorate of Idlib, and Daesh which organises attacks far from the battle-fields, in the Congo and Sri Lanka.
The liberation of the zone administered by Daesh as a state does not mean the end of this jihadist organisation. Indeed, while Daesh is a creation of the NATO Intelligence services, it represents an ideology which mobilises jihadists and may outlive it.
Al-Qaïda was an auxiliary army for NATO – we saw them fight in Afghanistan, then in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and finally in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Its principal operations were acts of war (under the command of the « Mujahideen », the « Arab League », or others), and alternatively, but more openly, terrorist operations like those in London or Madrid.
Oussama Ben Laden, officially listed as Public Enemy Number One, in fact lived in Azerbaïdjan under US protection, as revealed by an FBI whistle-blower. [1]
Let us not forget that the attacks of 11 September in New York and Washington have never been claimed by Al-Qaïda, that Oussama Ben Laden declared that he was not implicated, and that the video in which he contradicted this original statement has been authenticated only by his employer, the Pentagon, but has been declared to be false by all independent experts.
While Oussama Ben Laden apparently died in December 2001, according to the Pakistani authorities, and representatives of MI6 attended his funeral, certain individuals stood in for him until 2011, the date at which the United States pretended to have assassinated him, without ever showing his corpse. [2]
The official death of Oussama Ben Laden enabled the relooking of the jihadists as combatants led astray by their evil leader, which in turn allowed NATO to use the the support of Al-Qaïda, quite openly, in Libya and Syria, as it had done in Bosnia-Herzegovina [3].
Daesh, on the other hand, is a project for the administration of a territory, known as Sunnistan or the Caliphate, intended to separate Iraq and Syria, as was explained by Pentagon researcher Robin Wright with the aid of maps which were drawn up before this organisation was created [4]. It was financed and armed directly by the United States during operation « Timber Sycamore » [5]. It impacted public opinion by installing a ready-made law, the Charia.
If the jihadists of Al-Qaïda and Daesh were defeated in Iraq and Syria, it is first of all due to the courage of the Syrian Arab Army, then due to the Russian Air Force, which used penetrating bunker-buster bombs against the underground installations of the combatants, and finally, due to their allies. But if the military war is now over, [6], it is thanks to Donald Trump, who prevented the importation of new jihadists from the four corners of the world, mostly from the Arab peninsula, Maghreb, China, Russia, and finally the European Union.
Al-Qaïda is an auxiliary paramilitary force for NATO, while Daesh is an Allied land army.
Paradoxically, while Daesh lost the area for which it had been trained, it is Al-Qaïda which now administrates a territory, despite the fact that it was opposed to this kind of charge. The Syrians pushed the different jihadist groups back and boxed them in at the governorate of Idlib. Unable to break with this type of opportunistic ally, Germany and France took charge of them, in humanitarian terms, for their food and health needs. So when the Europeans speak today of the aid they are offering to the Syrian refugees, we should understand that they mean their support for the members of Al-Qaïda, who are generally neither civilians nor Syrians. Furthermore, the withdrawal of US troops from Syria changes very little as long as they continue to support their Al-Qaïda mercenaries in Idlib.
Since Daesh has been deprived of its territory, the survivors can no longer play the role which was handed to them by the Westerners, but only a function similar to that of Al-Qaïda – a terrorist militia. Besides which, while it was still operational, the Islamic state already practised terrorism away from the battle-geounds, as we saw in Europe as from 2016.
The attacks it carried out recently, on 16 April in the Congo [7], or on 21 April in Sri Lanka [8] had been anticipated by no-one, including ourselves. They could have been attributed indifferently to one organisation or another. Daesh’s only advantage over Al-Qaïda is its barbaric image, which can not last much longer.
If Daesh was able to emerge in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it was by entrusting its flag to the combatants of the « Allied Democratic Forces » of Uganda.
If it managed to act in such a spectacular manner in Sri Lanka, it’s because the Intelligence services were turned entirely towards the Hindu minority, and were not paying attention to the Muslims. It is perhaps also because these services had been trained by London and Tel-Aviv, or perhaps because of the opposition between the President of the Republic, Maithripala Sirisena, and the Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, which hindered the circulation of the intelligence.
Sri Lanka is particularly vulnerable because it imagines that it is too refined to be able to produce such bestiality. This is wrong – the country still has not thrown light on the way in which more than 2,000 Tigers of Tamil were executed in 2009, although they had been defeated and had surrendered. But every time we refuse to look clearly at our own crimes, we expose ourselves to the danger of committing new crimes because we believe that we are more civilised than the others.
In any case, the horrors in the Congo and Sri Lanka demonstrate that the jihadists will not disarm, and that the Western powers will continue to use them outside of the Greater Middle East.
0 thoughts on “Daesh’s new territories”