The Islamic State’s rapid and total victory in Syria raises a crucial question: How could they have succeeded without significant backing?
For a possible answer, let’s examine this 2016 Bulgarian documentary, which exposes U.S. involvement in supporting Islamic terror groups under Obama’s presidency.
The video was removed from every platform—including LiveLeak, Minds.com, and every other so-called free speech platform at the time—within an hour of being uploaded.
Shortly after Trump was elected, the documentary was finally able to be uploaded again.
This video makes a compelling case that, under the Obama administration, the Islamic State was being trained, funded, and equipped to carry out its operations across the Middle East.
This aligns with frequent reports of massive weapons drops that were mysteriously “intercepted” by Islamic State jihadis, as well as footage showing long convoys of brand-new Toyota Land Cruisers filled with IS fighters and heavy machine guns rolling along empty desert roads—without any collateral damage if the U.S. chose to strike.
It’s difficult to believe that the United States could surgically bomb Belgrade while avoiding even a single Van Gogh painting, yet somehow miss these convoys in the open desert.
The Islamic State, however, had a particular interest in Syria. Dabiq, a small town of fewer than 3,400 people, holds critical importance in Islamic eschatology.
During the brief existence of the Islamic Caliphate, The Islamic State’s glossy propaganda magazine was named Dabiq, and for good reason.
One of the major components of the Islamic scriptural canon is the Hadiths—alleged sayings of Islam’s founder, Mohammad. Several Hadiths predict that Dabiq will be the site of a future major battle between Muslims and “Rome,” which, in this context, refers to the Christian or Western world.
Islamic doctrine also teaches that Muslims who have died fighting in jihad to spread Islam cannot receive their otherworldly rewards until this battle takes place. This event, it is believed, will bring about the end of the world: Jesus will return to “break the cross,” and the heavens will open for the dead waiting in their graves to receive their bulk warehouse supply of revirginating concubines.
There’s another scriptural reason why the Islamic State’s conquest of Syria is particularly significant: the Sharia basis for offensive jihad.
Technically, when there is no official Caliphate, Muslims are only allowed to engage in defensive jihad. Of course, “defensive” jihad can be triggered by something as simple as someone saying something they don’t like about Islam—because in that case, they are “defending the faith.”
Retired CIA officer Clare Lopez explains this dynamic in detail at the 9:20 mark in the video below. The entire video provides important insights into Islamic thought and concepts, and the information is invaluable for anyone seeking to clearly understand what motivates observant Muslims.
Once a Caliphate is declared, and there is a Caliph—a leader who represents Mohammad in the Islamic hierarchy—it becomes legally permissible under sharia to wage offensive jihad. This means attacking lands controlled by unbelievers, or kuffar, with the goal of achieving total world domination by Islam.
Below is a short documentary we produced, introduced by Geert Wilders, during the brief existence of the Islamic State’s Caliphate, which emerged roughly during the Obama years.
In this documentary, many of the leading Western experts on Islam explain the critical difference in what is considered permissible Islamic action when an official Caliphate does or does not exist.
At this point, it is essential to dispel any notion that the Islamic State jihadi army—who swiftly defeated a large, well-trained, and well-equipped military in Syria—are somehow “rebels,” “freedom fighters,” or acting in any way to improve life for people in the region. They are not. Nor are their ambitions limited to Syria.
In the following two videos, the leader of the jihad army explicitly states their intention to conquer Israel next, as well as Saudi Arabia, which they view as corrupt. They believe the Kaaba, the site of the annual Muslim pilgrimage in Mecca, should be under the control of the Islamic State, rather than the “corruption” of the Saudi royals.
This animus toward the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is likely further inflamed by the Abraham Accords, brokered under Donald Trump, which established the framework for peace with Israel.
Below, a Syrian actress recounts her experience at a checkpoint controlled by the new Islamic State rulers of Syria. The key point she emphasizes: “You have too much freedom. This is an Islamic State now.”
And the Obama-Biden administration’s reaction to the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, and Al-Nusra Front—groups united by the same ideology and responsible for the conquest of Syria?
They are considering removing the terrorist group label from them, just as they did for the Houthis, Iran’s proxy terrorist army.
Given all the above, the math becomes quite simple: the Democrat Party is backing those who pose an existential threat to Western values, people, history, and civilization itself.
This is not just incompetence—it is deliberate. Western civilization hangs in the balance, and the threat cannot be ignored.”
