8 replies to this topic

[Luminosity]

Especially if you are in that part of the world or have been there.

[Clacksberg]

What ISIS are you talking about? I see barbarism - atrocity..

Edited by Cactus Fastback, 17 September 2014 - 08:19 PM.

[shadowhawk]

It is Islam.  Nothing new here.  Study History.

[PWAIN]

It is RELIGION.  Nothing new here.  Study History.

 

There, fixed that for you

[shadowhawk]

 

It is RELIGION.  Nothing new here.  Study History.

 

There, fixed that for you

 

The Non religious need not talk, just look at our last century.  By the way Islam has killed millions and it has been going on from the beginning.    The question was about ISIS so you fixed nothing.

Edited by shadowhawk, 18 September 2014 - 03:05 AM.

[Application]

Maybe ISIS= Carma

 

US/UK/Arab Kingdoms have been arming and funding Islamic radicals steadily since the late 1970's, when they became the weapon of choice against the USSR and later against other secular states who don't properly comply with Western oil or banking needs.

 

Our own Golem, or Eurasia.... 

[Luminosity]

Interesting theory, Application.  

 

On Democracy Now, the guy running the American Friends Service Committee, who is from the middle east, said we tried to bomb Iraq into moderation and inclusion.  

 

Apparently that didn't work.

 

I was wondering if what we are being told about ISIS is true.  Yeah, I know, but it wouldn't be the first time they ginned up atrocities.  In saying this I mean no disrespect to the victims of this organization.  

 

If what we are told is true, I wonder at the timing.  We didn't hear anything about it, then boom.  Suddenly controlled media is all about terrorists getting into this country.  I don't know if that's more of a problem now than it was.

 

They find a down home American guy in prison who conveniently confesses to having planned to have been a home grown terrorist, sparing no detail.  Why would he do that?  The estimates of how many people are in ISIS are all over the place.  There was a Christian news website which noted some anomalies;  photos documenting ISIS' atrocities had appeared elsewhere years earlier and had been about other things.  One photo seemed to the writer to have to be in a different country than the one it was supposed to portray.  A few days later I could not find that website.  Scotland Yard said that anyone who viewed the video of the execution of James Foley was "committing terrorism."  Wouldn't it serve the government's purposes if people viewed it and got keyed up?  Or was there something there that wasn't adding up?   James Foley's mother said that American officials asked her for information.  She and her husband said that the State Department threatened them with criminal prosecution if they tried to ransom their son.  An [former?] FBI official interviewed on the news about this said that iT hadn't been their policy to interfere with families trying to ransom their loved ones.  Was the State Department's action designed to prevent future Americans from being kidnapped, or did the government have another purpose for their actions?

 

An Arab fixer was kidnapped along with Steven Sotloff, but released a little while later.  He has been out for a year.  On CNN recently, he said that American officials never interviewed him. 

 

The interview with the security team who were present at Benghazi on the Bret Baier show on Fox News was revelatory.  I found them to be credible.  They said they were to stand down three times.  They were detained from rescuing the Ambassador and others, even though those people asked for their help.  They said the Embassy was not safe.  Apparently the Ambassador had asked for more security but been denied.  The contractors were delayed for twenty-five minutes and only left then against orders.  They expected air support, if only a flyover but none came.  They said that if not for the delay and the lack of air support they might have saved the people in the Embassy.  They said they did not see or hear about a protest or video, and they were there.  A former government official on the news said that the stand down order, which seemed to encompass three sectors, could only have come from on high.  They were alone all night. Some support came at dawn. More came that afternoon it was too late for the people who had died.    

 

Stand down sounds familiar.  A SWAT team near the Navy Shipyard shooting was told to stand down.  Radio's didn't work.  

 

Pat Smith, the mother of Scott Smith, who died at Benghazi was unequivocal when interviewed by Judge Jeannine on Fox News.  She said the government lied about what happened.  

"They lied."

 

"They killed my kid and they killed he other three guys."  

 

"Do you think it was a mistake or a lie?"  Judge Jeanine

 

I think it was a lie!"   

 

 

Hilary Clinton told Congress that there was no stand down order.  The House Intelligence Committee said there was no stand down order.  State Department spokesperson Marie Harf said "There was no stand down order period."  I have to say that I have seen State Department spokespeople lying like dogs more than once, notably Victoria Nuland.  

 

I'd like to close with part of a transcript of an interview with Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, on Democracy Now.  She said there's nothing there's nothing going on in Iraq and Syria that hasn't been going on for a while.  She implied it is being featured now for political reasons:

 

See the whole transcript here:  

 

NERMEEN SHAIKH [of Democracy Now]: And Phyllis Bennis, why do you think it is that this time President Obama has laid out a military strategy [emphasis added] and not considered diplomatic options, and the last year in August, following the chemical weapons attack, he backed down from his threat to strike militarily? What happened in the intervening time?

 

PHYLLIS BENNIS:  Yeah. Well, I think, unfortunately, much of this is politically driven. There were moments of crisis in Iraq, as there had been moments of crisis in Syria, where there was the question of would the U.S. intervene militarily. One of the big problems is we don’t hear options. We hear the choice that George Bush gave the nation on September 12th, after the September 11th attacks back in 2001, .  .  .  The problem is, all of the options that have to do with diplomacy, with disarmament, with arms embargoes, none of that was on the table.

 

This time around, we saw an immediate response, partly around the humanitarian crisis that was happening on Mount Sinjar, although we were told a story that turned out not to be true. There were not 30,000 people starving on the mountain; there were about 3,000, and most had already been safely escorted off the mountain, not because of U.S. airstrikes, but because of the work of the Syrian Kurds  .  .  .  And then we had the political response to the horrific crime of ISIS when they beheaded two American journalists. This was a horrifying act, but it was not a threat to the United States.  .  .  

 

The New York Times was the only mainstream media outlet that reported on—it was either August 27th or 28th—reported that the Free Syrian Army, the so-called moderate part of the Syrian rebels, who the U.S. wants now to increase aid and military support and training and arming  .  .  .  had itself beheaded six captives.  .  .  

 

AMY GOODMAN [of Democracy Now]:   .   .   .   Steven Sotloff, the journalist who was beheaded, his—the family spokesperson, Barak Barfi, said that the Syrian—so-called "moderate" Syrian rebels that are being discussed as the ones to support are the ones that sold Steven Sotloff to ISIS  .  .  .  .

 

PHYLLIS BENNIS: Yeah, again, this is politically driven  .  .  .  a major component of the Syrian opposition has signed a truce with ISIS, agreeing that as long as the Assad regime is in power in Damascus, they will not fight each other  .  .   this notion that somehow the Syrian opposition is going to fight ISIS is simply not the case. There have indeed been parts of the Syrian opposition that have challenged ISIS, but the notion that now, with new U.S. weapons, they are going to turn on ISIS simply isn’t the case  .  .  .   —all of those weapons and that training is going to be adding to the value of ISIS and its own military capacity  .  .  .

 

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Phyllis Bennis, the Free Syrian Army has of course denied the reports that it’s come to a truce with ISIS. Could you elaborate on the argument that you make in several of your articles that this bombing campaign is only likely to strengthen ISIS, both in Iraq and in Syria? How would that happen?

 

PHYLLIS BENNIS:  What we see now, when the U.S. goes after ISIS, is that the perception is: Here’s the U.S. acting as the air force for the Shia and the Kurds against the Sunni. That’s not going to encourage Sunni leaders, the tribal leaders who have brought their militia to support ISIS; the Sunni former generals, many of whom are now fighting with ISIS and presenting ISIS with experienced military leadership; and ordinary Sunnis, who may not like what ISIS stands for. These are pretty secular people. They drink and smoke and are citizens of the modern world. They’re not trying to go back to the seventh century, like ISIS is. But despite all of that, they are prepared to ally with ISIS because the repression they face from the Syrian—sorry, from the Iraqi government has been so profound that they will ally with anyone who’s prepared to fight back. So, the new government that’s now in power in Baghdad may represent an effort to broaden the government, but we haven’t seen it yet. And more importantly, the Sunni population of Iraq has not seen it yet. So every time the U.S. drops bombs, it’s perceived as one more indication that nothing has changed, that Sunnis in Iraq are still going to be the target of the Shia and Kurdish forces, backed by the United States, and now perhaps backed by other regional and international governments, as well.

 

AMY GOODMAN: [Asks about the funding source of ISIS]

 

PHYLLIS BENNIS: .  .  .  Saudi Arabia is the source of the largest amount of money  .  .  .  going to ISIS as well as a host of other Islamist and other organizations, the al-Nusra Front, the official franchise of al-Qaeda, and others. Some of it probably comes from the government, although that’s never been confirmed. But this is a very tightly controlled society, where if there was an interest by the government in stopping its own citizens  .  .   it could be contained.   .  .  . there is $60 billion worth of arms that they’ve [Saudi Arabia] been engaged in buying from the United States over this last two years. Many of those arms are the ones ending up in the hands of ISIS. It’s U.S. arms and it’s Saudi arms that are ending up there.   .  .  .  that money is coming to a large degree from Saudi Arabia, from other parts of the region, as well—from Qatar, from Kuwait, from UAE, from a number of countries  .  .  .  And the U.S.-Saudi alliance is such that if the U.S. chose to challenge the arms sellers in this country, who are making a killing on this new war  .  .  .  if they were to prepared to challenge those arms suppliers, and thus challenge the Saudi government, there could be a real effort to put a stop to the funding and arming of these terrible organizations like ISIS.

 

 

bolding was added by me.  

Edited by Luminosity, 19 September 2014 - 06:28 AM.

[Luminosity]

Interesting theory, Application.

 

On Democracy Now, the guy running the American Friends Service Committee, who is from the middle east, said we tried to "bomb Iraq into moderation and inclusion." 

Apparently that didn't work.

I was wondering if what we are being told about ISIS is true. Yeah, I know, but it wouldn't be the first time they ginned up atrocities. In saying this I mean no disrespect to the victims of this organization. 

If what we are told is true, I wonder at the timing. We didn't hear anything about it, then boom. Suddenly controlled media is all about terrorists getting into this country. I don't know if that's more of a problem now than it was.

They find a down home American guy in prison who conveniently confesses to having planned to have been a home grown terrorist, sparing no detail. Why would he do that? The estimates of how many people are in ISIS are all over the place. There was a Christian news website which noted some anomalies; photos documenting ISIS' atrocities had appeared elsewhere years earlier and had been about other things. One photo seemed to the writer to have to be in a different country than the one it was supposed to portray. A few days later I could not find that website. Scotland Yard said that anyone who viewed the video of the execution of James Foley was "committing terrorism." Wouldn't it serve the government's purposes if people viewed it and got keyed up? Or was there something there that wasn't adding up? James Foley's mother said that American officials asked her for information. She and her husband said that the State Department threatened them with criminal prosecution if they tried to ransom their son. An [former?] FBI official interviewed on the news about this said that it hadn't been FBI policy to interfere with families trying to ransom their loved ones. Was the State Department's action designed to prevent future Americans from being kidnapped, or did the government have another goal?

An Arab fixer was kidnapped along with Steven Sotloff, but released a little while later. He has been out for a year. On CNN recently, he said that American officials never interviewed him. 

The interview with the security team who were present at Benghazi on the Bret Baier show on Fox News was revelatory. I found them to be credible. They said they were to stand down three times. They were detained from rescuing the Ambassador and others, even though those people asked for their help. They said the Embassy was not safe. Apparently the Ambassador had asked for more security but been denied. The contractors were delayed for twenty-five minutes and only left then against orders. They expected air support, if only a flyover but none came. They said that if not for the delay and the lack of air support they might have saved the people in the Embassy. They said they did not see or hear about a protest or video, and they were there. A former government official on the news said that the stand down order, which seemed to encompass military three sectors, could only have come from on high. The security team was alone all night. Some support came at dawn. More came that afternoon it was too late for the people who had died. 

Stand down sounds familiar. A SWAT team near the Navy Shipyard shooting was told to stand down. Radio's didn't work. 

Pat Smith, the mother of Scott Smith, who died at Benghazi, was unequivocal when interviewed by Judge Jeanine on Fox News. She said the government lied about what happened. 

"They lied."

"They killed my kid and they killed he other three guys." 

"Do you think it was a mistake or a lie?" Judge Jeanine asked.

I think it was a lie!" 

Hilary Clinton told Congress that there was no stand down order. The House Intelligence Committee said there was no stand down order. State Department spokesperson Marie Harf said "There was no stand down order period." I have to say that I have seen State Department spokespeople lying like dogs more than once, notably former spokesperson Victoria Nuland. I believe the security team. 

I'd like to close with part of a transcript of an interview with Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, on Democracy Now.  She said there's there's nothing going on in Iraq and Syria that hasn't been going on for a while. She implied it is being featured now for political reasons. I have added the bold print. 

See the whole transcript here: http://www.democracy...olution_to_isil

 

NERMEEN SHAIKH [of Democracy Now]: . . . why do you think it is that this time President Obama has laid out a military strategy [emphasis added] and not considered diplomatic options, and the last year in August, following the chemical weapons attack, he backed down from his threat to strike militarily? What happened in the intervening time?

PHYLLIS BENNIS: . . . unfortunately, much of this is politically driven. There were moments of crisis in Iraq, as there had been moments of crisis in Syria, where there was the question of would the U.S. intervene militarily. One of the big problems is we don’t hear options. We hear the choice that George Bush gave the nation on September 12th . . . The problem is, all of the options that have to do with diplomacy, with disarmament, with arms embargoes, none of that was on the table.

This time around, we saw an immediate response, partly around the humanitarian crisis that was happening on Mount Sinjar, although we were told a story that turned out not to be true. There were not 30,000 people starving on the mountain; there were about 3,000, and most had already been safely escorted off the mountain, not because of U.S. airstrikes, but because of the work of the Syrian Kurds . . . And then we had the political response to the horrific crime of ISIS when they beheaded two American journalists. This was a horrifying act, but it was not a threat to the United States. . . 

The New York Times was the only mainstream media outlet that reported on—it was either August 27th or 28th—reported that the Free Syrian Army, the so-called moderate part of the Syrian rebels, who the U.S. wants now to increase aid and military support and training and arming . . . had itself beheaded six captives. . . 

AMY GOODMAN [of Democracy Now]: . . . Steven Sotloff, the journalist who was beheaded, his—the family spokesperson, Barak Barfi, said that the Syrian—so-called "moderate" Syrian rebels that are being discussed as the ones to support are the ones that sold Steven Sotloff to ISIS . . . .

PHYLLIS BENNIS: Yeah, again, this is politically driven . . . a major component of the Syrian opposition has signed a truce with ISIS, agreeing that as long as the Assad regime is in power in Damascus, they will not fight each other . . this notion that somehow the Syrian opposition is going to fight ISIS is simply not the case. There have indeed been parts of the Syrian opposition that have challenged ISIS, but the notion that now, with new U.S. weapons, they are going to turn on ISIS simply isn’t the case . . . all of those weapons and that training is going to be adding to the value of ISIS and its own military capacity . . .

NERMEEN SHAIKH: . . . the Free Syrian Army has of course denied the reports that it’s come to a truce with ISIS. Could you elaborate on the argument that you make in several of your articles that this bombing campaign is only likely to strengthen ISIS, both in Iraq and in Syria? . . . 

PHYLLIS BENNIS: What we see now, when the U.S. goes after ISIS, is . . . Here’s the U.S. acting as the air force for the Shia and the Kurds against the Sunni. That’s not going to encourage Sunni leaders . . . who have brought their militia to support ISIS; the Sunni former generals, many of whom are now fighting with ISIS and presenting ISIS with experienced military leadership; and ordinary Sunnis, who may not like what ISIS stands for. These are pretty secular people. They drink and smoke and are citizens of the modern world. They’re not trying to go back to the seventh century, like ISIS is. But despite all of that, they are prepared to ally with ISIS because the repression they face . . . from the Iraqi government has been so profound that they will ally with anyone who’s prepared to fight back. So, the new government that’s now in power in Baghdad may represent an effort to broaden the government, but we haven’t seen it yet. And more importantly, the Sunni population of Iraq has not seen it yet. So every time the U.S. drops bombs, it’s perceived as one more indication that nothing has changed, that Sunnis in Iraq are still going to be the target of the Shia and Kurdish forces, backed by the United States, and now perhaps backed by other regional and international governments, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: [Asks about the funding source of ISIS]

PHYLLIS BENNIS: . . . Saudi Arabia is the source of the largest amount of money . . . going to ISIS as well as a host of other Islamist and other organizations, the al-Nusra Front, the official franchise of al-Qaeda, and others. Some of it probably comes from the government, although that’s never been confirmed. But this is a very tightly controlled society, where if there was an interest by the government in stopping its own citizens . . it could be contained. . . . there is $60 billion worth of arms that they’ve [the Saudis] been engaged in buying from the United States over this last two years. Many of those arms are the ones ending up in the hands of ISIS. It’s U.S. arms and it’s Saudi arms that are ending up there. . . . that money is coming to a large degree from Saudi Arabia, from other parts of the region, as well—from Qatar, from Kuwait, from UAE, from a number of countries . . . And the U.S.-Saudi alliance is such that if the U.S. chose to challenge the arms sellers in this country, who are making a killing on this new war . . . if they were to prepared to challenge those arms suppliers, and thus challenge the Saudi government, there could be a real effort to put a stop to the funding and arming of these terrible organizations like ISIS.

 

 

Edited by Luminosity, 19 September 2014 - 06:50 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Well I don't find the stories about ISIS hard to believe, but I liked the rest of the above post.