IS Mega Discussion Thread

[Gabbar Singh]

Eerily similar to the Daniel Pearl murder in 2002- another journalist who was beheaded, again by a British Jihadi, just for doing his job.

 

[in_cutter]

Sick

I don't know where ppl get the bravery to watcg this stuff. Gives me the shivers thinking of it.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Have you read this guys work? Did he actually support the rebels in Syria?

This guy, with many other Western journalists, paraded all over Syria supporting what would later become ISIS fighters - he openly called anti State elements sponsored by the West for its own geo-political purposes "freedom fighters".
These "freedom fighters" thus began to dance with Bashar al Assad on Western tunes, and both jointly orphaned 1000s of Syrian children, and killing few adults here and there too (through cosmetic bombings, surgical beheading, etc, etc), not forgetting those amputated.

It's not the best way to get rid of such element and ISIS are a bunch of bloodthirsty thugs, but from your average Syrian (and even Libyan) POV, his beheading is a REALLY little salary for America's continuous role in the region.

 

[Dios]

Now get prepared to be bombed back to the Stone ages.

 

[akheR]

I think your homogeneous view of anti-Assad rebellion is rather sad.

What dramatic event has even happened in Assad's life since the "rebellion" ? He's probably on holiday with his children right now, after winning a democratically-manufactured selection.

The point is that, since the 1789 French "revolution" has been remote-controlled by British Freemasons and international Jews to stop the country's naval expansion (and thus letting the British empire become a true "empire"), every "popular" revolution is anything but popular : the "rebellion" against Assad (or Khadafi) was comprehensible if not to be encouraged, but the US used a lot of means to discredit Assad, wich not only involved economic and military help to the "freedom fighters", but also a moral legitimacy through Western journalists - and one of such journalists is the chap beheaded in OP.

75% of Libyans supported American intervention (http://www.gallup.com/poll/156539/opinion-briefing-libyans-eye-new-relations-west.aspx), so from your average Libyan perspective perhaps you should not speak for the Libyan people.

So what ? Even if 99% were pro US intervention, what is USA right to keep spreading its crap everywhere in the region for its own geo political chess-games ? There's a racial protest going on in the USA : what about Syria sending money to a separatist (so not even a "moderate") Black movement, giving them weapons (which would reduce a city of Aleppo's importance to ashes), legitimizing them with journalist propaganda, ... at the end, launching a bloody civil war ? If one of those journalists happens to be killed, will the families of those who lost relatives in a war imposed on them mourn him ? That's the question.

I would suggest you not hijack every issue to display your disagreement with American interventionist policy, especially when the two issues are largely irrelevant.

He wasn't in Syria to visit museums, but as an investigation journalist to show the "rebels" in good light : it's totally linked with the subject, because these same "rebels" (or, let's get cheesy, "freedom fighters") ended up beheading him.

Why do people watch beheading videos, when they know what to expect. Do people like getting disgusted?

That's old as the world, Aristotle in his Poetics said that humanity is just fascinated to see what should actually repulse it (he explicitly talked about dead bodies), and that's why he prefer the tragedy genre to "transform" individuals through gruesome stories and scenes ; the problem there is that with internet peoples nowadays obviously don't have Aristotle's concern of "shaping the soul" through such images, but just an unsettling fetish for gore.

 

[shaykh]

I think your homogeneous view of anti-Assad rebellion is rather sad.

75% of Libyans supported American intervention (http://www.gallup.com/poll/156539/opinion-briefing-libyans-eye-new-relations-west.aspx), so from your average Libyan perspective perhaps you should not speak for the Libyan people.

I would suggest you not hijack every issue to display your disagreement with American interventionist policy, especially when the two issues are largely irrelevant.

Rubbish...im a Sociologist so know full well that studies can be manipulated...if one looks at the conflict in terms of facts...Gaddafi had regained the country with ease and thats why intervention was necessary for NATO...their proxy didn't have support on the ground so they had to take Gaddafi out...

Like him or hate him...Gaddafi was a popular leader and at the very least he was more popular than those who replaced him...the rebellion against him came from the East and Misrata...nowhere else...

 

[shaykh]

I can see where Akher is coming from...although that is no way to treat a prisoner of war...

I don't think journalists are simply doing their job...they are there to fulfill an agenda...and Akher is correct when he says that the role of journalists was to present Assad in a bad light during the Syria conflict, Gaddafi in a bad light in the Libya conflict and now ISIS in a bad light now...the same people he was hired to show as freedom fighters previously...

It does raise an interesting question about journalists and whether they can be classed as combatants in some circumstances considering they are essentially propaganda agents more often than not...

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Why do people watch beheading videos, when they know what to expect. Do people like getting disgusted?

Watch 24, the US series about counter terrorist unit. Jack Bauer, the lead actor beheads two people during the course of the series. One is a paedophile and the other is a former Chinese diplomat. Beheading is getting kind of trendy.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

On the act itself, how someone becomes so dehumanised to the point they can cheerfully cut someone's head off is beyond me. But I guess this is the world we live in and on the plus side it will provide rich material for some internet trolling.

 

[style_guru]

Shouldn't we be glad that the be-header who speaks in a 'British accent' is no longer in Britain & won't ever return there to behead a British national?

 

[Bewal Express]

I haven't watched the video as I have never watched any of these inhumane videos. What a sick, cruel thing to do to a fellow human being. As I have written before I hope the Americans bomb them to pieces. These are evil people who need to be destroyed.

 

[shortbread]

Shouldn't we be glad that the be-header who speaks in a 'British accent' is no longer in Britain & won't ever return there to behead a British national?

What makes you so sure he's not coming back?!

These fools will soon get bored of the cause, miss their favourite kebab joint.......and will head back!! Next thing we know hundreds of these brain wash, war crime hardened criminals are roaming the neighbourhoods!!

 

[90MPH]

If you go to liveleaks there are many execution videos performed by Isis or IS as they are now known.
Even the "al Qaeda" type groups were not as extreme in their methods as these barbarians.

For once I hope the US actually bomb these misguided goons.

 

[archetype]

ISIS is going to be annihilated by Uncle Sam now.

 

[Zanjeer]

Disgusting. few posters are in this thread are even more disgusting. . Sick people. Yuck...

 

[imback]

Not in our name

 

[CricketCartoons]

Disgusting. few posters are in this thread are even more disgusting. . Sick people. Yuck...

Who are they?

 

[Chickenkorma]

Rubbish...im a Sociologist so know full well that studies can be manipulated...if one looks at the conflict in terms of facts...Gaddafi had regained the country with ease and thats why intervention was necessary for NATO...their proxy didn't have support on the ground so they had to take Gaddafi out...

Like him or hate him...Gaddafi was a popular leader and at the very least he was more popular than those who replaced him...the rebellion against him came from the East and Misrata...nowhere else...

I have met plenty of Libyans who supported the revolution here in Canada. Once again, you are hijacking an issue and presenting a really distorted picture due to your hatred of Western interventionist policies. I criticize them as much as the next guy, but some objectivity in your posts would be nice.

Just because some facts do not agree with your world perspective does not mean that they are necessarily falsified. You assert that you are a sociologists and that facts can be misrepresented, and then go on to base your entire argument on misrepresentations of fact. There is no reason to suggest that the Gallup survey I posted was in anyway manipulated. There is no reason to suggest that Gallup is an extension of US foreign policy. Again - a little objectivity here would be welcomed.

Linking Ghaddafi's control with popularity is a meaningless argument. There are many instances where unpopular leaders maintain control over their country.

What dramatic event has even happened in Assad's life since the "rebellion" ? He's probably on holiday with his children right now, after winning a democratically-manufactured selection.


The point is that, since the 1789 French "revolution" has been remote-controlled by British Freemasons and international Jews to stop the country's naval expansion (and thus letting the British empire become a true "empire"), every "popular" revolution is anything but popular : the "rebellion" against Assad (or Khadafi) was comprehensible if not to be encouraged, but the US used a lot of means to discredit Assad, wich not only involved economic and military help to the "freedom fighters", but also a moral legitimacy through Western journalists - and one of such journalists is the chap beheaded in OP.

Again, you are presenting a really generalized and homogeneous picture of the conflict. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that this conflict was manufactured and then put upon the Syrians by the West. Like all other nations and interest groups, including Iran, everyone's favorite Russia, Hamas, Saudi Arabia, etc, the West also joined in to project their foreign policy as the region plunged into instability. There is no "moral legitimacy" of a campaign in Syria. If there was the people of the United States would not be so divided over it. McCain, a vocal supporter of arming the Free Syrian Army (a faction of the rebels) has been heavily criticized for his support of rebels - due to the sectarian nature of the warfare, and the fact that these weapons had the potential to be turned on the West in the future. On the other hand, Obama was criticized for his "non-interventionist" policies by McCain himself. The reason there are such vast differences in opinion are BECAUSE OF JOURNALISTS. The reason the US public has a diverse range of opinions on the matter is because of journalists. (http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/03/public-opinion-runs-against-syrian-airstrikes/). PLEASE stop presenting the world in a black and white way, and please stop baselessly accusing journalists of being extensions of foreign policy when they are anything but.

So what ? Even if 99% were pro US intervention, what is USA right to keep spreading its crap everywhere in the region for its own geo political chess-games ? There's a racial protest going on in the USA : what about Syria sending money to a separatist (so not even a "moderate") Black movement, giving them weapons (which would reduce a city of Aleppo's importance to ashes), legitimizing them with journalist propaganda, ... at the end, launching a bloody civil war ? If one of those journalists happens to be killed, will the families of those who lost relatives in a war imposed on them mourn him ? That's the question.

No, that is not the question at all. The fact is that you used the term "average Libyan" when the average Libyan does not seem to share your views. I asked you to stop speaking on behalf of the Libyans. I assume they would not take kindly at having their plight used so you could spout your agenda.


He wasn't in Syria to visit museums, but as an investigation journalist to show the "rebels" in good light : it's totally linked with the subject, because these same "rebels" (or, let's get cheesy, "freedom fighters") ended up beheading him.

How can you accurately say that these were the same rebels. Once again, I'd like to remind you that the rebels are fighting among themselves. How do you know, accurately, which rebel faction he deemed freedom fighters?

If you could read Gabbar Singh's post and reply to it, it would be appreciated. I would like to see some of the work he has done that has "legitimized" US intervention, and how this US intervention has led to the rise of ISIS. You have provided ZERO evidence to these two central components of your argument.

 

[Chickenkorma]

These are the views Akher and Shaykh are echoing:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dg...rists-in-syria-instead-they-cut-off-his-head/
Frontpagemag: where the motto is "inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out".

James Foley was one of a new breed of activists calling themselves journalists. He didn’t travel to report on a story, but to promote an agenda. And the agenda was obvious from his Twitter feed. (https://twitter.com/jfoleyjourno/with_replies)

Any human life lost is tragic, but a moral individual would have much more empathy for the Syrian Christians who suffered at the hands of Foley’s favorite Jihadists than one of their pet propagandists.

Foley came to Syria to support the Sunni Islamist rebels against the Syrian government.

He cheered on the Sunni Muslim terrorists fighting to ethnically cleanse the Christians of Aleppo. In the conflict between Israel and Hamas, his tweets and retweets were chock full of pro-terrorist propaganda.

But Foley ran afoul of at least some of the Sunni Jihadists in Syria. His twitter feed was filled with references to the FSA. And the FSA was going to be eclipsed by the Al Qaeda affiliates. And that was where he ended up.

When Austin Tice, an actual freelance journalist was kidnapped by Jihadists, Foley ridiculed the idea that Jihadists had kidnapped him. Surely Syrian Jihadists wouldn’t do that sort of thing.

Except they did.

When Newsweek’s Muslim Rage cover story came out, Foley mocked it too. Raging Muslims. How silly and Islamophobic.

Foley was fanatically anti-Israel and was even willing to echo Iranian propaganda.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/HalaJaber">@HalaJaber</a> is killing it today <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/arabspring?src=hash">#arabspring</a></p>— James W. Foley (@jfoleyjourno) <a href="https://twitter.com/jfoleyjourno/statuses/247398841157025792">September 16, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

So the wrong term. He also had strong thoughts on Romney.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Dear <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Syrians?src=hash">#Syrians</a> don't believe that Romney will help you acquire surface to air missiles. He's just saying that to prove Obama's "weak".</p>— James W. Foley (@jfoleyjourno) <a href="https://twitter.com/jfoleyjourno/statuses/255337945626726402">October 8, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>both pathetic on gun violence <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/debates?src=hash">#debates</a></p>— James W. Foley (@jfoleyjourno) <a href="https://twitter.com/jfoleyjourno/statuses/258393735883272192">October 17, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

It turned out that he didn’t have to worry about gun violence after all.

I don't find this radical right-wing propaganda piece anymore despicable than the rubbish you two have spewed.

 

[Chickenkorma]

These are some of the views Mr. Foley represented:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Ambassador Rice has not tweeted sympathy for any of the civilian dead in Gaza. This, in a nutshell, is why we can't arbitrate.</p>— Dan Murphy (@bungdan) <a href="https://twitter.com/bungdan/statuses/271286936533082112">November 21, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>More Palestinians were killed in Gaza Wednesday than Israelis were killed by projectiles from Gaza in the past 3 years. <a href="http://t.co/Yv4PHkaM">http://t.co/Yv4PHkaM</a></p>— Ghazala Irshad (@ghazalairshad) <a href="https://twitter.com/ghazalairshad/statuses/269402729036779521">November 16, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>This map of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Syria?src=hash">#Syria</a> via <a href="https://twitter.com/rcolebourn">@rcolebourn</a> shows why "arming the opposition" isn't as straightforward as some people imagine <a href="http://t.co/83W8JdGD">http://t.co/83W8JdGD</a></p>— Brown Moses (@Brown_Moses) <a href="https://twitter.com/Brown_Moses/statuses/267994061233852416">November 12, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>welcome to Syria's most infamous faked videos- <a href="https://twitter.com/tracey_shelton">@tracey_shelton</a> <a href="http://t.co/pMV8HgSY">http://t.co/pMV8HgSY</a></p>— James W. Foley (@jfoleyjourno) <a href="https://twitter.com/jfoleyjourno/statuses/268285684547194880">November 13, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The more and more I read his twitter feed the more and more I am absolutely enraged by your pathetic and despicable views.

Shame on you.

 

[akheR]

Again, you are presenting a really generalized and homogeneous picture of the conflict. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that this conflict was manufactured and then put upon the Syrians by the West. Like all other nations and interest groups, including Iran, everyone's favorite Russia, Hamas, Saudi Arabia, etc, the West also joined in to project their foreign policy as the region plunged into instability.

The fact that the US was engineering the cosmetic 'Arab Spring' since a long time is a well attested fact, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, ... weren't ; they were dragged into it (defending their own interests) because of the conflict started by the US, they didn't start it, perhaps you might find that there's a sensible difference, and, I mean, and despite all its ills, I don't think Saudi Arabia has been known for its neo-imperial policies, and probably didn't invade a sovereign nation by transforming cat urine into WMD since quite a long time.

There is no "moral legitimacy" of a campaign in Syria. If there was the people of the United States would not be so divided over it. McCain, a vocal supporter of arming the Free Syrian Army (a faction of the rebels) has been heavily criticized for his support of rebels - due to the sectarian nature of the warfare, and the fact that these weapons had the potential to be turned on the West in the future. On the other hand, Obama was criticized for his "non-interventionist" policies by McCain himself.

Is that a joke ? Have you seen the freedom fighters' weapons ? Where do you think that comes from ? As far as I know, there aren't many engineers there who could manufacture it in few weeks - the truth is that the West provided weapons to the rebels, that is, they provided means to destroy a sovereign nation-state to rogue elements. How is it called in your dictionary... 'State terrorism', perhaps ?

US lackey Francois Hollande just admitted recently that France delivered weapons to rebels.

Your semantic gymnastic about "interventionist" and "non interventionist" policies is like trying to find an aesthetic difference between beheading someone or straightly put a bullet into the braincells.
McCain wanted an "open, pro-active intervention", it doesn't mean that Obama didn't help them... your naivety is criminal.

No, that is not the question at all. The fact is that you used the term "average Libyan" when the average Libyan does not seem to share your views. I asked you to stop speaking on behalf of the Libyans. I assume they would not take kindly at having their plight used so you could spout your agenda.

That's the whole question : instead of resorting back to Hammurabi's times, and esp. since 1648, you just simply don't help "rebels" in a sovereign nation-State, even if 99% of the said citizens are suffering - that just goes against international law.
Do you see Syria helping Black separatist groups in the USA ? That's the only question actually, otherwise USA could give some artillery, tanks, ... to Palestinians right now.

How can you accurately say that these were the same rebels. Once again, I'd like to remind you that the rebels are fighting among themselves. How do you know, accurately, which rebel faction he deemed freedom fighters?

He supported "rebels", indeed he didn't go into philosophical tangents about the beard lengths of that group or this one, but he supported peoples who were fighting the State, and lost his head in the process to the same people - when Syrians were getting butchered by them he still considered them "rebels", that's all.

If you could read Gabbar Singh's post and reply to it, it would be appreciated. I would like to see some of the work he has done that has "legitimized" US intervention, and how this US intervention has led to the rise of ISIS. You have provided ZERO evidence to these two central components of your argument.

Read his Tweets.

 

[Andrew Hughes]

Akher is correct when he says that the role of journalists was to present Assad in a bad light during the Syria conflict, Gaddafi in a bad light in the Libya conflict and now ISIS in a bad light now

The role of all journalists, every single one of them is only propaganda? BBC, AFP, Al-Jazeera, Reuters, CNN, all of them, every single journalist for every single news channel, news organisation, newspaper and magazine is employed to produce propaganda?

Some journalists are biased, some aren't very good, some are given editorial steer, but ALL journalists there for propaganda purposes? That is a huge claim, which requires powerful and compelling evidence, so would be interested to read it.

And this is a thread about the horrific murder of a journalist. If you have evidence that he was in Syria specifically to produce propaganda for the American govt, I'd be interested to read that too. Otherwise, this just strikes me as bad taste.

 

[Bewal Express]

If journalists didn't cover Syria,the same guys that are telling us that it's all propaganda would be the first to say that Muslim lives are not valued by the western media and that's why they don't cover them. Stop making stupid excuses for this horrific crime, it makes you as pathetic as the losers who carried out this shameful crime.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

If Foley was supporting the Jihadists why on earth would they behead him? Now I realise these guys are deranged but on what level does that make any sense at all?

 

[Yossarian]

Haven't watched the video. Don't intend to either.

Whilst I totally and utterly condemn the murder of Foley by these vermin, I wonder how much notice his family, especially his brother, will pay to what Foley said just before he died.

He then addresses his brother, John, who he says is a member of the US Air Force.

"Think about the lives you destroy including those of your own family. I call on you, John: think about who made the decision to bomb Iraq recently and kill those people, whoever they may have been," he says.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/islamic...oley-claim-20140820-1061oz.html#ixzz3AxhZD32L

 

[Chickenkorma]

The fact that the US was engineering the cosmetic 'Arab Spring' since a long time is a well attested fact, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, ... weren't ; they were dragged into it (defending their own interests) because of the conflict started by the US, they didn't start it, perhaps you might find that there's a sensible difference, and, I mean, and despite all its ills, I don't think Saudi Arabia has been known for its neo-imperial policies, and probably didn't invade a sovereign nation by transforming cat urine into WMD since quite a long time.

This is in no way, even remotely, relevant to the murder of James Foley, I'd advise you to open a separate thread on the issue so you can clearly explain how the Arab Spring was "manufactured" in some nefarious way, by the US as a matter of foreign policy.

Is that a joke ? Have you seen the freedom fighters' weapons ? Where do you think that comes from ? As far as I know, there aren't many engineers there who could manufacture it in few weeks - the truth is that the West provided weapons to the rebels, that is, they provided means to destroy a sovereign nation-state to rogue elements. How is it called in your dictionary... 'State terrorism', perhaps ?

Again, you are veering away from the relevant issue at hand. I am in no way arguing about the US role in Syria, nor am I defending it. You completely missed the point of the post. The point is - simply - that there is a vast difference of opinion in the States among the public, and the reason for it is because of frontline reporting from the likes of James Foley. Reporters that risk their lives to go to the frontlines and provide pictures, images and accounts so that people can have a more accurate picture of the events unfolding. That was the point. If the West was using journalists to legitimize an intervention in Syria as you suggested, the American people would not be so divided over it.

US lackey Francois Hollande just admitted recently that France delivered weapons to rebels.

Your semantic gymnastic about "interventionist" and "non interventionist" policies is like trying to find an aesthetic difference between beheading someone or straightly put a bullet into the braincells.
McCain wanted an "open, pro-active intervention", it doesn't mean that Obama didn't help them... your naivety is criminal.



That's the whole question : instead of resorting back to Hammurabi's times, and esp. since 1648, you just simply don't help "rebels" in a sovereign nation-State, even if 99% of the said citizens are suffering - that just goes against international law.
Do you see Syria helping Black separatist groups in the USA ? That's the only question actually, otherwise USA could give some artillery, tanks, ... to Palestinians right now.

Again - that's not the issue, but something about your massive ego disallows you to "let it go". I'm not arguing about the ethics and legality of intervention, and nor do I plan on getting into a debate on something I have little grasp of. The point was you misrepresented the views of the "average Libyan", and I suggested that you not use their plight to sprout your agenda, especially when they do not echo your views. That's it.

He supported "rebels", indeed he didn't go into philosophical tangents about the beard lengths of that group or this one, but he supported peoples who were fighting the State, and lost his head in the process to the same people - when Syrians were getting butchered by them he still considered them "rebels", that's all.

This is the only portion of your post that is relevant to the argument. You seem to love going off on tangents to rant about the West's foreign policy. But once again, I'll repeat myself for the nth time: "Supported?" In what way? I'd love to hear you go into more depth on how he "supported" Syrian rebels. When he used the term rebels, it seems that he was almost exclusively referring to the FSA. The FSA itself is fighting a battle with the ISIS, the group that beheaded him. Your argument literally makes no sense.

Read his Tweets.

His tweets are great - seems like a man of a rather objective perspective and keen journalistic eye. I have literally no respect at all for you after reading his tweets.

 

[Chickenkorma]

If Foley was supporting the Jihadists why on earth would they behead him? Now I realise these guys are deranged but on what level does that make any sense at all?

Because "Read his Tweets". Apparently.

If journalists didn't cover Syria,the same guys that are telling us that it's all propaganda would be the first to say that Muslim lives are not valued by the western media and that's why they don't cover them. Stop making stupid excuses for this horrific crime, it makes you as pathetic as the losers who carried out this shameful crime.

The role of all journalists, every single one of them is only propaganda? BBC, AFP, Al-Jazeera, Reuters, CNN, all of them, every single journalist for every single news channel, news organisation, newspaper and magazine is employed to produce propaganda?

Some journalists are biased, some aren't very good, some are given editorial steer, but ALL journalists there for propaganda purposes? That is a huge claim, which requires powerful and compelling evidence, so would be interested to read it.

And this is a thread about the horrific murder of a journalist. If you have evidence that he was in Syria specifically to produce propaganda for the American govt, I'd be interested to read that too. Otherwise, this just strikes me as bad taste.

Thank you, and well put. But the answer will hardly address this question and go on into a rant on US foreign policy...

 

[akheR]

This is in no way, even remotely, relevant to the murder of James Foley, I'd advise you to open a separate thread on the issue so you can clearly explain how the Arab Spring was "manufactured" in some nefarious way, by the US as a matter of foreign policy.

It's totally relevant because the beheaded journalist was here for that job of promoting rebels' cause, not visiting old Damascus, stop being so redundant and try to adopt a more holistic view instead of surfing on pseudo humanist rhetoric no one cares about.

Again, you are veering away from the relevant issue at hand. I am in no way arguing about the US role in Syria, nor am I defending it. You completely missed the point of the post. The point is - simply - that there is a vast difference of opinion in the States among the public, and the reason for it is because of frontline reporting from the likes of James Foley. Reporters that risk their lives to go to the frontlines and provide pictures, images and accounts so that people can have a more accurate picture of the events unfolding. That was the point. If the West was using journalists to legitimize an intervention in Syria as you suggested, the American people would not be so divided over it.

So what are you exactly arguing about ? This guy was, like other journalists, the moral license for the US to give weapons to the so called rebels which now are playing with his head. When you go in other countries literally promoting wars and thus the death of few Syrian sub-humans, perhaps you should have taken more precaution.
And the US civil society is irrelevant, like it has been since the beginning of US's militant foreign policy.

Again - that's not the issue, but something about your massive ego disallows you to "let it go". I'm not arguing about the ethics and legality of intervention, and nor do I plan on getting into a debate on something I have little grasp of. The point was you misrepresented the views of the "average Libyan", and I suggested that you not use their plight to sprout your agenda, especially when they do not echo your views. That's it.

You still aren't answering, as expected: would it be right for Syria to send weapons, journalists, ... promoting separatist Black ultra nationalism in the US ? A little yes or a little no would do.

And forget about Libya then, we're on Syria (and Iraq).

This is the only portion of your post that is relevant to the argument. You seem to love going off on tangents to rant about the West's foreign policy. But once again, I'll repeat myself for the nth time: "Supported?" In what way? I'd love to hear you go into more depth on how he "supported" Syrian rebels. When he used the term rebels, it seems that he was almost exclusively referring to the FSA. The FSA itself is fighting a battle with the ISIS, the group that beheaded him. Your argument literally makes no sense.

Your transversal reading doesn't help you... "support... in what way ?", well, it's so obvious that I don't even need to further develop it - he supported the "rebels", the fact that the FSA later on had problems with the ISIS or that since January 2014 the ISIS had problem with Jabhat al Nusra is irrelevant - when you decide to support rogue elements against sovereign nation State (as much as despicable Bashar al Assad is), you have played you moral part in the sufferings of the Syrian population.

His tweets are great - seems like a man of a rather objective perspective and keen journalistic eye. I have literally no respect at all for you after reading his tweets.

You should probably try to mirror his 'keen journalistic eye'; and read correctly, otherwise 'losing' your 'respect' is quite dramatic, indeed.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

His tweets are great - seems like a man of a rather objective perspective and keen journalistic eye.

After reading his tweets I agree with this.

 

[just saying]

If Foley was supporting the Jihadists why on earth would they behead him? Now I realise these guys are deranged but on what level does that make any sense at all?

If the Shia are muslim why on earth would the ISIS jihadists behead them - because they are not muslim enough!

James Foley was a Leftist who supported Palestinians against Israelis and supported the rebels against Asad, yet when the ISIS was formed and came into power he was beheaded by a british ISIS jihadist, because for ISIS, his left leanings and sympathies for muslim causes were still not good enough - afterall he was an infidel!

 

[OZGOD]

If the Shia are muslim why on earth would the ISIS jihadists behead them - because they are not muslim enough!

James Foley was a Leftist who supported Palestinians against Israelis and supported the rebels against Asad, yet when the ISIS was formed and came into power he was beheaded by a british ISIS jihadist, because for ISIS, his left leanings and sympathies for muslim causes were still not good enough - afterall he was an infidel!

I think they made him a gruesome symbol to shock the world. His political leanings didn't matter. The problem with these types of unsanctioned, unofficial wars is that it draws all kinds - you have your religious extremists who really do believe they are fighting for a cause, that really do believe in the caliphate, then you have your soldiers of fortune, professional soldiers looking for work, then you have your criminals and sociopaths who just like killing people. They could be of any religion but in these environments they thrive. Where else can you kill someone and not go to prison?

 

[Laparwah]

Such things are always a possibility when you enter a warzone. He knew the risks when taking on the job. An inhumane act for sure only that the perpetrators would say it's no worse then what US and NATO do in the region.

 

[Chickenkorma]

It's totally relevant because the beheaded journalist was here for that job of promoting rebels' cause, not visiting old Damascus, stop being so redundant and try to adopt a more holistic view instead of surfing on pseudo humanist rhetoric no one cares about.

PROVE IT. We've all been asking you to prove it, and you've given not a single proof. Enough with this useless rhetoric, bring some facts or get out. I have no pleasure in reading your hollow rants.

So what are you exactly arguing about ? This guy was, like other journalists, the moral license for the US to give weapons to the so called rebels which now are playing with his head. When you go in other countries literally promoting wars and thus the death of few Syrian sub-humans, perhaps you should have taken more precaution.
And the US civil society is irrelevant, like it has been since the beginning of US's militant foreign policy.

PROVE IT. Prove that he was promoting war. Prove that he viewed Syrian deaths as sub-human. Prove that he was being used as an extension of US foreign policy.

You still aren't answering, as expected: would it be right for Syria to send weapons, journalists, ... promoting separatist Black ultra nationalism in the US ? A little yes or a little no would do.

And forget about Libya then, we're on Syria (and Iraq).

Have I ever defended, condoned, condemned or even given so much as an opinion of US intervention here? What the hell does my opinion on US interventionist policy have to do with this issue? The fact is I called you out for falsely using Libyan plight to spout your rants, and rather than moving on from the issue, we've gone into the realm of hypothetical black separatist groups, and the dilution of complex philosophical and ethical questions into yes or nos. You're really grasping at straws here.



Your transversal reading doesn't help you... "support... in what way ?", well, it's so obvious that I don't even need to further develop it - he supported the "rebels", the fact that the FSA later on had problems with the ISIS or that since January 2014 the ISIS had problem with Jabhat al Nusra is irrelevant - when you decide to support rogue elements against sovereign nation State (as much as despicable Bashar al Assad is), you have played you moral part in the sufferings of the Syrian population.

If it's so obvious you can surely provide half a coherent argument on how he nefariously supported the rebels to extend US foreign policy. Surely you can? How did he support rogue elements? By this logic, any/all organizations/states can indiscriminately kill journalist - if so much as sending out information is what qualifies as "support". All journalists have a bounty on their head as per your despicable views.



You should probably try to mirror his 'keen journalistic eye'; and read correctly, otherwise 'losing' your 'respect' is quite dramatic, indeed.

Perhaps you should give a less senile explanation than "read his tweets", because both Gabbar Singh and I did and came to the opposite conclusions you did. Perhaps you like sharing the intellectual capacity of radical right wing islamophobic Americans who read the tweets and shared your views.

..

 

[Chickenkorma]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>James Foley's mum has left a very moving comment on the campaign's Facebook page <a href="http://t.co/6H7ZWuLtxH">http://t.co/6H7ZWuLtxH</a> <a href="http://t.co/nSS6naIJWf">pic.twitter.com/nSS6naIJWf</a></p>— The Independent (@Independent) <a href="https://twitter.com/Independent/statuses/501990203922599936">August 20, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[OZGOD]

There's a school of thought that this slickly produced beheading video is an attempt to provoke a ground invasion.

Brutal beheading of James Foley an attempt to provoke ground invasion of Iraq and Syria

Tom Allard
Published: August 21, 2014 - 12:15AM

The purpose of the horrific video of the beheading of US photojournalist James Foley seems straightforward – to terrify the US into halting its aerial bombardment of the militant group.

But what appears to be a barbaric and blood-soaked ransom note to force a US withdrawal has an entirely different objective, say former national security operatives and terrorism experts.

That is, to generate enough public outrage so the US and its allies expand their military campaign in Iraq and Syria to include ground forces.

Released by terrorist group Islamic State on Wednesday, it begins with footage of US President Barack Obama announcing air strikes on Iraq before Foley, on his knees in the desert and reciting scripted remarks, blames the US government for his impending death.

A hooded man with a British accent castigates Obama and the Muslim deaths wrought by the air strikes then murders Foley.

The video ends with another US journalist, Steven Sotloff, hauled before the camera with the final words – "the life of this American citizen, Obama, depends on your next decision".

"What's happening is they are trying to get Western intervention in Iraq and Syria," says Clarke Jones, a former national security operative specialising in counterterrorism now with the Australian National University.

"That would enable them to develop a new and powerful narrative of Western oppression of Muslims that would help them attract a new wave of recruits."

Renowned Norwegian terrorism expert Thomas Hegghammer agrees, questioning whether the attack on the Yazidis, raids into Kurdistan and the beheading of Foley could all be a "deliberate provocation strategy".

"ISIS seems to be doing everything it can (short of attacks on the West) to draw the US into conflict," he tweeted.

An angry West suits Islamic State, says Monash University terrorism expert Greg Barton. Hostility to Muslims feeds into their narrative of belittled Muslims persecuted by non-believers. It helps recruiting among their target audience and, at the same time, puts pressure on Western governments to act.

"One of the calculations they have to make is whether the public in the West is ready to back [a bigger military operation in Iraq and Syria]," he said. "An angry public is more likely to call upon their governments to do something drastic."

The dramatic last moments when the beheading of Sotloff is threatened are chilling considering some 20 journalists have – like Foley and Sotloff – been kidnapped in Syria, many by Islamic State.

A procession of videoed executions could put immense pressure on the West to act with a larger military campaign.

Islamic State are skilled propagandists and a social media powerhouse, using the medium to distribute its message widely and cheaply, while bringing a new dimension to jihad – the intimate experiences and the personalities of the fighters on the ground.

The video is a multi-camera, high-definition production that employs careful editing and scripting.

For more than a decade, grisly videos has been steadily released by militants. They became so ubiquitous that most media ignored them.

But Islamic State and its cadres have taken the genre to a new level of horror.

The images of the children of Australian Khaled Sharrouf holding decapitated heads and the video of an Iraqi police chief being beheaded – which was tweeted during the World Cup with the comment "This is our ball ... it is made of skin" – are just two macabre examples among many.

Whether Islamic State's strategy is smart is highly debatable. The brutality of its predecessor al-Qaeda in Iraq led to communities and tribal leaders that had previously supported the terrorist organisation siding with the US and Iraqi government.

Given the core Islamic State fighters are foreigners, many of them behaving abominably, it is hard to see how the militants – for all their recent military successes – can sustain support among the people they have subjugated.

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/world/brutal-...vasion-of-iraq-and-syria-20140820-1068ig.html

 

[HRP270]

The British beheader will be identified pretty soon. His voice will be continuously be matched to cell phone conversations around the world (the NSA monitors all cellphone conversations in the world and runs them to voice matching algorithms).

The beheader also made the mistake of showing his eyes, right now sophisticated facial recognition computer programs are searching all passport, driver license or customs/immigration photo databases.

 

[Chickenkorma]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Worrying: <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Syria?src=hash">#Syria</a> rebels kill 28 <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Assad?src=hash">#Assad</a> soldiers in attacks on checkpoints, several executed acc to video <a href="http://t.co/ceLHrp42">http://t.co/ceLHrp42</a> vía <a href="https://twitter.com/Reuters">@reuters</a></p>— Francesca Cicardi (@FraCicardi) <a href="https://twitter.com/FraCicardi/statuses/264294694287200256">November 2, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Another tweet from Foley that shows he was a pro rebel propagandist worthy of death

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Due HUGE generosity to get an ambulance en route <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Aleppo?src=hash">#Aleppo</a>, we'll keep fundraising ambulances 4 neediest regions of Syria <a href="http://t.co/8gRyWy4G">http://t.co/8gRyWy4G</a></p>— James W. Foley (@jfoleyjourno) <a href="https://twitter.com/jfoleyjourno/statuses/263035176660131840">October 29, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Iraqi Shia joining sectarian war <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Syria?src=hash">#Syria</a> to fight Sunnis flooding in, attack on Shia shrine here could be as Samarra '06 <a href="http://t.co/kvY3CUce">http://t.co/kvY3CUce</a></p>— James W. Foley (@jfoleyjourno) <a href="https://twitter.com/jfoleyjourno/statuses/262507310071570432">October 28, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Kurdish video shows protest being fired on, allegedly by opposition fighters <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Aleppo?src=hash">#Aleppo</a> <a href="http://t.co/YaNN0UTv">http://t.co/YaNN0UTv</a></p>— James W. Foley (@jfoleyjourno) <a href="https://twitter.com/jfoleyjourno/statuses/262319465553879040">October 27, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Opposition fighters reported clash with Kurdish <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Aleppo?src=hash">#Aleppo</a>, 30 dead, 200 captured according reports <a href="http://t.co/tA09wRS1">http://t.co/tA09wRS1</a></p>— James W. Foley (@jfoleyjourno) <a href="https://twitter.com/jfoleyjourno/statuses/262318339265794049">October 27, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>extremists wage bombing campaign against govt officials, journos, while many youth left fight in Syria <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Darna?src=hash">#Darna</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Libya?src=hash">#Libya</a> <a href="http://t.co/T5FWH3Qc">http://t.co/T5FWH3Qc</a></p>— James W. Foley (@jfoleyjourno) <a href="https://twitter.com/jfoleyjourno/statuses/262186424848248832">October 27, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Azaz rebels declare detention of Lebanese journalist due to "incompatibility of his work w course <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Syrian?src=hash">#Syrian</a> revolution" <a href="http://t.co/ULH6j0sf">http://t.co/ULH6j0sf</a></p>— James W. Foley (@jfoleyjourno) <a href="https://twitter.com/jfoleyjourno/statuses/262158473213644800">October 27, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>UN to investigate civilian deaths in drone strikes, specifically "follow up" strikes on rescuers and funeral goers <a href="http://t.co/FdjsH1Vb">http://t.co/FdjsH1Vb</a></p>— James W. Foley (@jfoleyjourno) <a href="https://twitter.com/jfoleyjourno/statuses/261697589949394944">October 26, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[OZGOD]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Worrying: <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Syria?src=hash">#Syria</a> rebels kill 28 <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Assad?src=hash">#Assad</a> soldiers in attacks on checkpoints, several executed acc to video <a href="http://t.co/ceLHrp42">http://t.co/ceLHrp42</a> vía <a href="https://twitter.com/Reuters">@reuters</a></p>— Francesca Cicardi (@FraCicardi) <a href="https://twitter.com/FraCicardi/statuses/264294694287200256">November 2, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Another tweet from Foley that shows he was a pro rebel propagandist worthy of death

I think if you cut right down to it he was American, that in itself shows he was worthy of death I guess.

 

[Chickenkorma]

I think if you cut right down to it he was American, that in itself shows he was worthy of death I guess.

Sadly this is the truth. When these people read the words "American journalist beheaded" all that registers from that phrase in their mind is "American".

 

[Chickenkorma]

Why would someone who is being accused of providing the "moral legitimacy" of Syrian plight through foreign intervention share articles like this (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n18/nir-rosen/among-the-alawites) that humanize the Alawites by providing their perspective?

I've provided numerous tweets and articles that show the character of James Foley as a man of integrity who does not deserve to have his name so baselessly tarnished, and his death so inhumanely justified, for no other reason than him being an American journalist.

Pathetic is not a word that I can use enough for the posts in this thread.

 

[OZGOD]

Haven't watched the video. Don't intend to either.

Whilst I totally and utterly condemn the murder of Foley by these vermin, I wonder how much notice his family, especially his brother, will pay to what Foley said just before he died.

Jag, I can't speak for his family but if he were my brother I would assume anything that he said he would have been made to say.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Yossarian]

Jag, I can't speak for his family but if he were my brother I would assume anything that he said he would have been made to say.

True.
But putting that aside, and please understand this is not defending these vermin killers in any way, if the brother works for an organisarion (The US Air Force) that has also killed thousands of innocents in the region over the previous 10+ years, as "collateral damage", and Foley would have seen the results of that first hand in his time as a journalist in the region, and almost certainly talked to his family about it over the years, the question is still a valid one.

 

[Electron]

Why would anyone say things as ordered when he knows that the same people will kill him the very next minute ? Fear of more painful death ?

 

[Yossarian]

Why would anyone say things as ordered when he knows that the same people will kill him the very next minute ? Fear of more painful death ?

In the faint hope that the death threat is simply that, a threat, which will not be carried out if he says what they want him to say?
I'll bet they rehearsed the part many times where Foley makes his statement and only went through with the killing when Foley "got it right".

 

[shaykh]

I have met plenty of Libyans who supported the revolution here in Canada. Once again, you are hijacking an issue and presenting a really distorted picture due to your hatred of Western interventionist policies. I criticize them as much as the next guy, but some objectivity in your posts would be nice.

Just because some facts do not agree with your world perspective does not mean that they are necessarily falsified. You assert that you are a sociologists and that facts can be misrepresented, and then go on to base your entire argument on misrepresentations of fact. There is no reason to suggest that the Gallup survey I posted was in anyway manipulated. There is no reason to suggest that Gallup is an extension of US foreign policy. Again - a little objectivity here would be welcomed.

Linking Ghaddafi's control with popularity is a meaningless argument. There are many instances where unpopular leaders maintain control over their country.

Lol this is like asking Iranians abroad what they think of their leadership...lol Libyans abroad are abroad for a reason ...

 

[shaykh]

The role of all journalists, every single one of them is only propaganda? BBC, AFP, Al-Jazeera, Reuters, CNN, all of them, every single journalist for every single news channel, news organisation, newspaper and magazine is employed to produce propaganda?

Some journalists are biased, some aren't very good, some are given editorial steer, but ALL journalists there for propaganda purposes? That is a huge claim, which requires powerful and compelling evidence, so would be interested to read it.

And this is a thread about the horrific murder of a journalist. If you have evidence that he was in Syria specifically to produce propaganda for the American govt, I'd be interested to read that too. Otherwise, this just strikes me as bad taste.

I'll take back what I said...and perhaps it is in bad taste...cos i don't know specifically what he has said himself...

my general point however was that generally journalists are required to find something that fulfills an agenda or manipulate information...journalists quit all the time because of this very reason...media is what carries war more often that not...its how you lie to your population and it is how you demonize your enemy...

Al jazeera to give an example shamefully reported things like Gaddafi was hiring black mercenaries to fight for him...this lead to ethnic cleansing of blacks which of course Al Jazeera didn't cover...nor did they cover the fact that HRO's stated there was no evidence of mercenaries being used...mass media is an instrument of war...so at times i can see how they can be classed as combatants...

 

[akheR]

[MENTION=136674]Chickenkorma[/MENTION] unbelievable how dishonest you can be : who "justified" his death ? He didn't deserve to die and ISIS are scum.

But I'll try to make it the simplest way possible:

1) Was he a journalist or a tourist ?
2) As a journalist, he supported "rebels", or, rogue elements against a nation-State which launched a bloody civil war costing 100 000s of lives - when you encourage a civil war sponsored by your country and show the "rebels" in a good light, you have a moral responsibility in the deaths of the 100 000s of Syrians.
3) no one said that he was the king of illuminatis or he dehumanized Syrians - but his role (even if implicit for himself) justified a civil war which costed - and costs - 100 000s of lives, and affected - and affects - 1 000 000s millions of lives.

There's a school of thought that this slickly produced beheading video is an attempt to provoke a ground invasion.

Oh yes, of course, because a military operation in Syria is the last thing the USA would want, the USA which has never been in the Middle East as a whole for such purposes.

ISIS, like once al Qaida (but who didn't claim Khilafa, sadly) is just a too convenient enemy to be destroyed right now : the USA is praying that it gets stronger I mean, apart from justifying heavy Western military in the region (once again), what could ISIS ever do to the USA itself ? A sporadic failed bomb attack... or verbal threats ?

 

[s28]

What were US special forces doing in Syria ?
Was this journalist not just a simple journalist but a US double agent ? H

 

[Yossarian]

I'll take back what I said...and perhaps it is in bad taste...cos i don't know specifically what he has said himself...

my general point however was that generally journalists are required to find something that fulfills an agenda or manipulate information...journalists quit all the time because of this very reason...media is what carries war more often that not...its how you lie to your population and it is how you demonize your enemy...

Al jazeera to give an example shamefully reported things like Gaddafi was hiring black mercenaries to fight for him...this lead to ethnic cleansing of blacks which of course Al Jazeera didn't cover...nor did they cover the fact that HRO's stated there was no evidence of mercenaries being used...mass media is an instrument of war...so at times i can see how they can be classed as combatants...

Completely agree. Perfect example of that is when 'journalists' are 'embedded' within fighting units. How the heck can they be impartial when reporting their stories? For example, would you expect them to report in detail, report the suffering or those killed/maimed, or their loved ones, if that is the result of "collateral damage" by the very unit, by the very soldiers, they are embedded with?

 

[Yossarian]

What were US special forces doing in Syria ?
Was this journalist not just a simple journalist but a US double agent ? H

Does anybody honestly believe that that the US, the UK, Israel, Iran, France and all the others countries/states with a vested interest don't have their own special forces, intelligence officers and such like on the ground, perhaps even helping one side or the other?

 

[Chickenkorma]

[MENTION=136674]Chickenkorma[/MENTION] unbelievable how dishonest you can be : who "justified" his death ? He didn't deserve to die and ISIS are scum.

But I'll try to make it the simplest way possible:

1) Was he a journalist or a tourist ?
2) As a journalist, he supported "rebels", or, rogue elements against a nation-State which launched a bloody civil war costing 100 000s of lives - when you encourage a civil war sponsored by your country and show the "rebels" in a good light, you have a moral responsibility in the deaths of the 100 000s of Syrians.
3) no one said that he was the king of illuminatis or he dehumanized Syrians - but his role (even if implicit for himself) justified a civil war which costed - and costs - 100 000s of lives, and affected - and affects - 1 000 000s millions of lives.

I think something about the words "prove it" and "evidence" don't register in your brain. I've read this same statement again and again and asked you to prove it, again and again. The least you could do is actually provide some of his work that proves he "supported rebels" or purposely misconstrued events to "show them in a good light" or "encouraged a civil war"... pathetic accusations that have been regurgitated a hundred times now with not even half a coherent argument to justify it with proof and evidence.

I've posted many tweets of his that show him not only sharing the stories of the Alawites, the Kurds, and the sectarian nature of the warfare, but also criticizing all of these factions. If anything he was impartial in how he reported the events. He was on the front lines not as an extension of foreign policy, but to report the events objectively. Is that really too hard to comprehend?

So far your argument suggests that simply being in Syria and reporting on events is enough to make you implicit in "encouraging a civil war". That's a huge allegation with absolutely no backing whatsoever.

 

[Andrew Hughes]

...mass media is an instrument of war...so at times i can see how they can be classed as combatants...

I don't disagreed with the example you presented, I could also point to examples of biased, shoddy or inaccurate reporting. But I do disagree that 'mass media is an instrument of war'. I think it CAN be, as Goebbels and many many others have shown, and I think politicians will always try to use it or if they can't use it, denigrate it. But just because it CAN be, doesn't mean it always is.

As I see it, we have two alternatives. We accept the principle that journalists can go freely about the world reporting on what they see, and as consumers of news, we must try to filter out the inaccuracy and bias where it occurs, or at the very least try to get our news from more than one source. Or we don't accept that principle, and say it is okay for journalists to be treated at combatants, thereby inevitably and drastically reducing the information we get. In short, we have to choose between having lots of information, a portion of which is inaccurate or presented in a biased way, and no news. I would prefer the former to the latter.

Was this journalist not just a simple journalist but a US double agent ?

I don't know. Do you know? Do you have any evidence for this? In which case, why suggest it?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I am always amazed how these journalists end up in places where they must realise that they are putting themselves in incredible danger. In Islamic war zones there must be a pretty high chance one faction or another will try to abduct you. Even a few years back there was the reporter who got gunned down by the Russians cold bloodedly because he was caught with some rebel group or other trying to get the inside story. Is it really worth it?

 

[s28]

Does anybody honestly believe that that the US, the UK, Israel, Iran, France and all the others countries/states with a vested interest don't have their own special forces, intelligence officers and such like on the ground, perhaps even helping one side or the other?

no doubt they have their agents on the ground just asking if any credible source has made the link that the journalist who the US were so anxious to bring back wasn't actually one of their own agents

seems a bit of a coincidence he was captured in Libya then went to Syria and was so effusive about supporting the radical Islamists

all seems a bit Morten Storm

 

[in_cutter]

Plenty of conspiracy theories flying around as to how the whole scene is a setup & fake.

 

[Chickenkorma]

<iframe src="http://player.theplatform.com/p/2E2eJC/nbcNewsOffsite?guid=nc_studentsmo_140821" width="635" height="500" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"></iframe>
.

 

[Jadz]

I think your homogeneous view of anti-Assad rebellion is rather sad.

75% of Libyans supported American intervention (http://www.gallup.com/poll/156539/opinion-briefing-libyans-eye-new-relations-west.aspx), so from your average Libyan perspective perhaps you should not speak for the Libyan people.

I would suggest you not hijack every issue to display your disagreement with American interventionist policy, especially when the two issues are largely irrelevant.

How trustworthy or reliable is a Gallop poll of Libyans? Or, Syrians? Or, Iraqis? Or, even the British?

My teacher is Libyan, some of her family are still trapped in Tripoli, where the situation is horrendous - she described it as 'Jahannam'

The Libyan people - many of them - may have hated Gaddafi, but they did not want American or foreign intervention. For good reason. They had witnessed the consequences of 'regime-change' or 'humanitarian' interventions in various parts of the Arab/Muslim world. Only those who were being funded by outsiders sought American intervention. The same may be said of Syria - only those supported and funded by outsiders are demanding American/Western intervention.

The current situation in Libya is extremely dangerous. A power vacuum was bound to be the result after the removal of Gadaffi - militias are running amok, all fighting for the spoils of war and control over oil resources.

Regarding journalists: Ukraine is also a dangerous place for them to operate in, especially Russian reporters in the East of the country, where shelling and bombardment continue on. Even in the US - that bastion of a free press - has seen intimidation of, threats against journalists in Ferguson (where the young teenager was killed by the police).

 

[shaykh]

I don't disagreed with the example you presented, I could also point to examples of biased, shoddy or inaccurate reporting. But I do disagree that 'mass media is an instrument of war'. I think it CAN be, as Goebbels and many many others have shown, and I think politicians will always try to use it or if they can't use it, denigrate it. But just because it CAN be, doesn't mean it always is.

As I see it, we have two alternatives. We accept the principle that journalists can go freely about the world reporting on what they see, and as consumers of news, we must try to filter out the inaccuracy and bias where it occurs, or at the very least try to get our news from more than one source. Or we don't accept that principle, and say it is okay for journalists to be treated at combatants, thereby inevitably and drastically reducing the information we get. In short, we have to choose between having lots of information, a portion of which is inaccurate or presented in a biased way, and no news. I would prefer the former to the latter.



I don't know. Do you know? Do you have any evidence for this? In which case, why suggest it?

Check my most recent thread...i am advocating for journalism...even biased journalism has its place...because at least you know the perspective of the countries media...its better having RT and Al Jazeera and the BBC cos we know who's mouthpieces they are...

But give me players like Vice any day of the week...they get unprecedented access like they did with ISIS cos they are balanced comparatively...and are not affiliated with any specific country...i have a lot of love for independent journalism and have little time for 'state' journalism...

 

[shaykh]

Vice Documentary on ISIS - Must watch

Vice make the best documentaries hands down...considering what happened yesterday its incredible that a journalist managed to get access to an embed himself with ISIS in their so called Caliphate...Medyan Dairieh is one brave man...

And this was a fascinating watch...i think ISIS would be happy at how they were portrayed...and whats chilling is just how many children they have indoctrinated with this dogmatic, expansionist, Islamic ideology...some of the stuff coming from children's mouths was awful to see...
I think what is certainly evident from watching this...is this isn't a rag tag group at work but they are actually running a state...and worryingly it looks like they are here to stay...

 

[Chickenkorma]

How trustworthy or reliable is a Gallop poll of Libyans? Or, Syrians? Or, Iraqis? Or, even the British?

My teacher is Libyan, some of her family are still trapped in Tripoli, where the situation is horrendous - she described it as 'Jahannam'

The Libyan people - many of them - may have hated Gaddafi, but they did not want American or foreign intervention. For good reason. They had witnessed the consequences of 'regime-change' or 'humanitarian' interventions in various parts of the Arab/Muslim world. Only those who were being funded by outsiders sought American intervention. The same may be said of Syria - only those supported and funded by outsiders are demanding American/Western intervention.

The current situation in Libya is extremely dangerous. A power vacuum was bound to be the result after the removal of Gadaffi - militias are running amok, all fighting for the spoils of war and control over oil resources.

Regarding journalists: Ukraine is also a dangerous place for them to operate in, especially Russian reporters in the East of the country, where shelling and bombardment continue on. Even in the US - that bastion of a free press - has seen intimidation of, threats against journalists in Ferguson (where the young teenager was killed by the police).

Perhaps not the most trustworthy, and public opinion does tend to sway as events unfold: but what's the alternative to using a Gallup poll? Your gut feeling?

 

[Chickenkorma]

Does this mean Vice and their journalists are propaganda tools encouraging civil war in Syria and Iraq?

 

[DrSchultz]

Vice guide to Karachi is also very informative.

 

[shaykh]

What's the alternative to using a Gallup poll? Your gut feeling?

Have a look at Libya now...

Fact is this...most people regardless of their hatred for their governments don't want their country to be invaded...I hate my government...do I want London to be bombed to shreds...no...most people are not interested in revolutions...

Most people want to simply be able to do normal things...and in Libya you were fine as long as you didn't oppose the government...in response to that the people were provided free education, health care, housing etc...

The revolutionaries came from the Islamists from the East and Misurata...do tell me where else in libya there were uprisings?...and the reason there were uprisings in these pockets is cos they were actually disadvantaged by Gaddafis regime because they opposed Gaddafi...and the British even funded them to assassinate Gaddafi a long while back which meant their tribes were further disadvantaged...they had better conditions in the previous government so desired social mobility not for Libyans but for their tribes...go look at the tribal makeup of the leadership...representative of libyans...hell no...its just a changing of the reigns...and now the rest of Libya has to suffer...so when you say Libyans you make the careless mistake of looking at them as some monolithic entity when the fact is there are plenty of factions in play...ask the black Libyans who have been cleansed what they think of the new leadership and whether they wanted the East to take power...

Gaddafi warned that Libya would turn to Somalia and it has...

 

[Jadz]

Perhaps not the most trustworthy, and public opinion does tend to sway as events unfold: but what's the alternative to using a Gallup poll? Your gut feeling?

I do not think public opinion can be measured - for so serious a matter as bombing a nation - by taking a poll. We are not talking about elections here - we are talking about the destruction of an entire nation. What public, in any society, wants to see their lives over-turned, infrastructure destroyed, cities and villages left as ghost-towns, hundreds of thousands dead, injured or displaced? A Western opinion-polling agency is hardly a reliable source for an Arab/Muslim populace.

One supposes if a poll were to be taken in North Waziristan, the numbers would tend to show a favourable opinion of the current massive military onslaught on the region - it all depends upon how questions are framed and who is asked.

Opinion polls tend to be employed by politicians to push their political agendas.

 

[shaykh]

For a sample flaw with the study:

'Some areas of Libya were excluded for security reasons. Excluded areas represent approximately 20% of the population.'

So basically places where the situation is at its worst are excluded from the study...there we go...a truly representative study ...

'Surt, Al-Jabal Al-Gharbi, Al-Jufrah, An-Nuqat al- Khams, Ghat, Marzuq, Nalut, Wadi al_Hayat, Wadi ash-Shati, Sabha.'

Surt as you may know is actually Gaddafi's home city... Al-Jabal Al-Gharbi is near Tripoli...An-Nuqat al- Khams is near Tripoli...Al-Jufrah is in the centre...Ghat is southern Libya where the Fezzans were...black Libyan Gaddafi loyalists...Murzuq is also southern Libya...Nalut...again Western Libya and near Tripoli...Wadi Al Hayat is south west again...so pro Gaddafi area....Wadi ash-Shati again Western Libya...Sabha is south western Libya...

So basically exclude the areas where most of the bloodshed is and you have your results...

Again i haven't even begun to discuss the problems in having a study in a country full of Islamist militants...if you think you are going to get honest answers then you won't...countries in the midst of civil wars are not places to go if you want quantitative data...its like going into Rakka and asking the residents what they think of ISIS...if you think you're gonna get 'reliable' results then your completely mistaken...

 

[Chickenkorma]

Have a look at Libya now...

Fact is this...most people regardless of their hatred for their governments don't want their country to be invaded...I hate my government...do I want London to be bombed to shreds...no...most people are not interested in revolutions...

Most people want to simply be able to do normal things...and in Libya you were fine as long as you didn't oppose the government...in response to that the people were provided free education, health care, housing etc...

The revolutionaries came from the Islamists from the East and Misurata...do tell me where else in libya there were uprisings?...and the reason there were uprisings in these pockets is cos they were actually disadvantaged by Gaddafis regime because they opposed Gaddafi...and the British even funded them to assassinate Gaddafi a long while back which meant their tribes were further disadvantaged...they had better conditions in the previous government so desired social mobility not for Libyans but for their tribes...go look at the tribal makeup of the leadership...representative of libyans...hell no...its just a changing of the reigns...and now the rest of Libya has to suffer...so when you say Libyans you make the careless mistake of looking at them as some monolithic entity when the fact is there are plenty of factions in play...ask the black Libyans who have been cleansed what they think of the new leadership and whether they wanted the East to take power...

Gaddafi warned that Libya would turn to Somalia and it has...

How can you accuse me of looking at the Libyans as a monolithic entity when by whole post was against that perspective? I think your recall of events is really really really diluted. Ghaddafi's forces did not need to fire at protesters - that event was the perfect catalyst for war. I am not arguing for intervention, nor am I condoning it in anyway - my original post was a suggestion that perhaps we should not speak for what the "average Libyan" desires because we ourselves don't know.

I'm no fan of war nor have I offered any defense for what happened in Libya or the current events unfolding. I personally liked a few of Ghadaffi's policies... at the same time the people have a right to self-determination and Ghadaffi severely hindered that by reserving all the posts of significance for himself and those close to him.

 

[Saeed]

Its only matter of time before Iran destroys these Khwarij and hopefully the country will be divided into 3 parts.

 

[KarachiKing]

They are well shot and have great editing and format, but definitely give a very superficial look over their issues

 

[shaykh]

How can you accuse me of looking at the Libyans as a monolithic entity when by whole post was against that perspective? I think your recall of events is really really really diluted. Ghaddafi's forces did not need to fire at protesters - that event was the perfect catalyst for war. I am not arguing for intervention, nor am I condoning it in anyway - my original post was a suggestion that perhaps we should not speak for what the "average Libyan" desires because we ourselves don't know.

I'm no fan of war nor have I offered any defense for what happened in Libya or the current events unfolding. I personally liked a few of Ghadaffi's policies... at the same time the people have a right to self-determination and Ghadaffi severely hindered that by reserving all the posts of significance for himself and those close to him.

There is a difference between an armed insurrection and protesters...check even Al Jazeera's articles from the initial start of the conflict...killing police officers, breaking out prisoners was presented as revolutionary behavior by an organization that championed them...Gaddafi had every right to fire at them...

And lest we forget that these were people acting as proxy against him...maybe NATO shouldn't be trying to foment unrest everywhere they go...

Libya was fine except for those in the East...which is an Islamist stronghold...plenty of Libyans have been found dead causing trouble in Iraq and Pakistan so here we defend Pakistan's right to deal with the TTP...but in Gaddafis case its firing on innocent protesters ...

 

[shaykh]

Does this mean Vice and their journalists are propaganda tools encouraging civil war in Syria and Iraq?

There is a reason Vice gets this type of unprecedented access and others don't...it is because they are known as being objective...and they are independent...Read my post to Andrew...I stated I am all for independent journalism...

But would I trust the BBC on Iraq, Libya or Ukraine...hell no...I posted a piece on Ukraine a while back where the BBC censored their own report...one of their journalists produced something which incriminated Ukrainian forces so they canned it...you play by the rules or you don't get anywhere...

With someone like Vice you have leverage and can let the story speak...whilst for BBC, Al Jazeera etc...you have been given the end result and have to find ways of producing that narrative...

 

[Chickenkorma]

There is a difference between an armed insurrection and protesters...check even Al Jazeera's articles from the initial start of the conflict...killing police officers, breaking out prisoners was presented as revolutionary behavior by an organization that championed them...Gaddafi had every right to fire at them...

And lest we forget that these were people acting as proxy against him...maybe NATO shouldn't be trying to foment unrest everywhere they go...

Libya was fine except for those in the East...which is an Islamist stronghold...plenty of Libyans have been found dead causing trouble in Iraq and Pakistan so here we defend Pakistan's right to deal with the TTP...but in Gaddafis case its firing on innocent protesters ...

Defending a states right to prosecute criminals does not in any way absolve the state of all responsibilities. If the Pakistan army were to indiscriminately fire at a crowd of Islamists, there would be outrage here as well. Comparing a group of protesters to the TTP in itself is odd. Just become some protesters were involved in those activities does not give the state the license to blindly fire at a group of protesters without due process. I'm perplexed that you would defend an action such as that.

 

[shaykh]

ISIS allegedly executes 700...

The number can't be verified...but ISIS themselves are posting vids of their work...not vids I want to view but here is a report on the vids:

'Gruesome videos have surfaced online purporting to be of the beheadings in several Sheitat villages. The footage showed men laughing and mocking the victims by mimicking goats as they performed the executions.'

The useful thing with ISIS is they are recording their work...and they aren't issuing denials when these things are happening cos they believe their behavior to be legitimate...in a strange way they are likely to be trustworthy...if they deny doing something its probably true...

Wiping out male members of a tribe does also have Islamic precedent...the tribes come as it happens was not accepting the payment of the jizya and then trying to encourage other tribes to fight ISIS...for this treason they have been killed...

BEIRUT, Aug 16 (Reuters) - The Islamic State militant group has executed 700 members of a tribe it has been battling in eastern Syria during the past two weeks, the majority of them civilians, a human rights monitoring group said on Saturday.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has tracked violence on all sides of the three-year-old conflict, said that reliable sources reported beheadings were used to execute many of the al-Sheitaat tribe, which is from Deir al-Zor province.

The conflict between Islamic State and the al-Sheitaat tribe, who number about 70,000, flared after Islamic State took over two oil fields in July.

"Those who were executed are all al-Sheitaat," Observatory director Rami Abdelrahman said by telephone from Britain. "Some were arrested, judged and killed."

Reuters cannot independently verify reports from Syria due to security conditions and reporting restrictions.

The head of the al-Sheitaat tribe, Sheik Rafaa Aakla al-Raju, called in a video message on Sunday for other tribes to join the fight.

"We appeal to the other tribes to stand by us because it will be their turn next ... If (Islamic State) are done with us the other tribes will be targeted after al-Sheitaat. They are the next target," he said in the video, posted on YouTube. (Reporting by Oliver Holmes; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall and Stephen Powell)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/16/islamic-state-syria-executions_n_5684506.html

 

[Varun]

They're making Saddam Hussein look like a blue-eyed boy.

 

[shaykh]

Defending a states right to prosecute criminals does not in any way absolve the state of all responsibilities. If the Pakistan army were to indiscriminately fire at a crowd of Islamists, there would be outrage here as well. Comparing a group of protesters to the TTP in itself is odd. Just become some protesters were involved in those activities does not give the state the license to blindly fire at a group of protesters without due process. I'm perplexed that you would defend an action such as that.

My point is they weren't protesters...protesters don't go and kill policeman and break open prisoners...protests and armed insurrections are different things and thats my point...it was never protesters in Libya...it was armed men...at best you can call it legitimate resistance...but unarmed protesting is bending the truth...

 

[Chickenkorma]

There are videos on liveleak showing largely unarmed Libyan protesters being shot at ...

 

[s28]

There were also videos today of many yazidis converting to islam so at least some good is coming from this.

 

[shaykh]

There were also videos today of many yazidis converting to islam so at least some good is coming from this.

Well their alternatives aren't great are they?...

to my understanding they don't have the option of paying the Jizya because they are heretics...so unlike the Christians and the Jews who have the option of Islam, Jizya and death...the Yazidis have the option of Islam or death...much like the Shias do...

 

[akheR]

Interesting, the fact that ISIS declared a Khilafa would be both it's greatest strategical tool to seek a worldwide legitimacy (from both rabid Muslims and anti Muslims, esp. the latter's geopolitical gluttony) and also its sharpest mistake, as the last you should do in a tribal zone is to not only declare a strongly centralized power, but to carry out such acts - like al Zarqawi, al Baghdadi is slowly but certainly declaring a war on the region's tribes, who are more thoughtful of an alliance with the Shias considering what happened after 2006, but might get there if that's how ISIS sees the concept of conflict-resolution.

Well their alternatives aren't great are they?...

to my understanding they don't have the option of paying the Jizya because they are heretics...so unlike the Christians and the Jews who have the option of Islam, Jizya and death...the Yazidis have the option of Islam or death...much like the Shias do...

I've read that it was not up until the tanzimat (reforms) of the Ottoman empire that they began to impose jizya on Yazidis, which, as you'd guess, was due to 'media pressure' from the democratic West and liberal citizens... wonder how they actually survived for so long ? Might have mingled them with the Zoroastrians who, despite worshipping fire, had the 'chance' to pay the jizya ?

Narrated Bajalah:

That 'Umar would not take the Jizyah from the Zoroastrians until 'Abdur-Rahman bin 'Awf informed him that the Prophet (pbuh) took Jizyah from the Zoroastrians of Hajar.

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1587

There are also occurrences of jizya being taken from Buddhists and Hindus of the subcontinent.

 

[Gilly]

There were also videos today of many yazidis converting to islam so at least some good is coming from this.

Yes their god must be proud of their work.

 

[mithun_minhas]

There were also videos today of many yazidis converting to islam so at least some good is coming from this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-shows-conversion-of-Yazidi-men-to-Islam.html

Watched the video here.

Its funny how a gun man tells a bunch of unarmed man about hell fires.

Also, he says that once they become Muslim, they will have all the rights. So it means that Non-Muslims are lesser people according to them.