Islamic terror began with ISIS?
What about the founder of Boko Haram? Mohammed Yusuf. Is he a Mossad agent?
What about Ahmad Umar, the leader of Al-Shabaab? Mossad? Of course not. He was born and raised in the Dir clan of Somalia.
The Taliban? Are they a creation of the Mossad, too?
Do you even think about this? I sure do. You're asking me to believe that every violence-loving, hate-preaching imam and every terrorist general is a Jew in disguise, and I have to say that's about the dumbest thing I've heard of.
Al-Baghdadi could be Netanyahu in a fake beard, and it still wouldn't change the fact that Islamic terror existed before, exists now, and will exist long after ISIS is gone. Islamic terror doesn't need the Mossad. All it needs is Islam.
9/11 was the biggest terrorist event ever to have occurred in human history and it was blamed on Muslims. The official story being, that some Arabs, using nothing more than boxcutters, were able to do a world first, of bringing down the steel-reinforced world trade centre skyscraper buildings in NY and then, somehow, what they did supposedly also managed to cause Building 7, to also collapse, into its own footprint, on the very same day, at free-fall speed.
This event is what the neocons then used to kick off the never-ending, so-called, "war on terror" (which is really a war OF terror) in the middle east.
There were then also many other attacks that occurred worldwide that were similarly blamed on Muslims, including Bali, Madrid, 7/7 2005 in London, and many others.
The war on terror has expanded also to not only blame Muslims, but also Christians, if one thinks of all the "lone nut" attacks and school shootings, like Sandy Hook that was staged and the media was caught using crisis actors, etc.
The London attacks were proved beyond any shadow of a doubt to have been another false flag attack that was not done by Muslims but it was immediately blamed on them, using the media, when Blair said what he did.
You cannot look at all of that and not see that there is a pattern. Why did they blame the Muslims for all these attacks, when it was provably not the Muslims who did it?
The other part of it, is if people are being attacked, at some point, some people among them will try to fight back. What other choice would they have? The people who are attacking them are after all, giving then a reason to become extremists. In doing all these false flags, followed by the unjust wars that are based on them, the people who are behind it are at the same time creating the extremists they want to have too.
If one thinks of the "war on terror" which was started based on lies about 9/11 (when THREE of the world trade center buildings "collapsed" i.e. were brought down by controlled demolition) and that was then blamed on Muslims.
Think of all the lies they made up and told to the whole world, like about the supposed (non existing) "secret caves" in afghanistan that had all these supposed secret tunnels in them (like for a villain, in a James Bond movie) in which Bin Laden supposedly had been hiding and had masterminded the 9/11 attacks from. They also lied to the world about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, which was then later admitted to have been a lie. That means the invasion of Iraq and the war on terror was ALL based on a lie.
Larry Silverstein said on camera, that they had decided to "pull" building 7 ("pull" is a term used for controlled demolitions) that day. Building 7 was not hit by anything. The BBC even got ahead of themselves and broadcast that Building 7 had collapsed, before it happened. How could they have known that Building 7 was going to collapse, before it happened, and have made the mistake of reporting on it prematurely, unless the BBC was being used as a part of the conspiracy?
They need extremists (whether real, or fabricated) to be able to keep scaring people, using the media, to keep everyone thinking that the wars in the middle east are just wars that should continue, and to keep the soldiers fighting in their unjust wars.