British Hostage David Haines

[Roch]

I agree Roch, I don't think it's insensitive to have an open mind and doesn't mean the tragedy of what happened is in any way diminished but the men in grey suits have their own agenda and it's good to be aware of it. Imo

Hi Maggie.  Would you agree that a huge number of mainstream media viewers among the public are likley to broadly accept what they are viewing as being genuine?  We are after all being presented with 'bad guys vs good guys'. 

How independent is our media?  It's not officially state controlled but does that mean it's not state controlled at all?

If the media is not really independent, and most viewers broadly accept what they are shown on the news re bad guys vs good guys, then that's a perfect cover to manipulate public opinion? And if some of the bad guys really are bad, then that just makes it easier again. 

Where did ISIS come from anyway?  Arrmed people dont just wake up one morning and say "Righto lads... let's take over a third of Iraq".

I find the whole thing a bit dodgey. 

[maggie]

Hi Maggie.  Would you agree that a huge number of mainstream media viewers among the public are likley to broadly accept what they are viewing as being genuine?  We are after all being presented with 'bad guys vs good guys'. 
How independent is our media?  It's not officially state controlled but does that mean it's not state controlled at all?
If the media is not really independent, and most viewers broadly accept what they are shown on the news re bad guys vs good guys, then that's a perfect cover to manipulate public opinion? And if some of the bad guys really are bad, then that just makes it easier again.
Where did ISIS come from anyway?  Arrmed people dont just wake up one morning and say "Righto lads... let's take over a third of Iraq".
I find the whole thing a bit dodgey. 

yes Roch I agree we have no way of knowing how much or how little our media is manipulated, more than we imagine I would guess. Personally have a strong suspicion Saudi Arabia has a finger in that particular pie as ISIS is Sunni.  So who was behind the Arab Spring I wonder all very spontaneous? Isis was supposed to come out of Syria and maybe Iraq before that. If America stirred the pot they appear to have got more than they bargained for. I do believe ISIS exists and they're intent on taking over the world, dont doubt that, I do think the beheadings are real but am aware there is a slight chance they may not be.
What a dreadful mess!!!

[Alias]

What I find strange is that IS so SUDDENLY is this humongous threat. Isn´t there Intelligence, people surveilled back and front.
Most of the recruiting to the IS happens via the internet, we are told. OK, then it should be super-easy to detect, but it hasn´t been? Recruiting of 30.000 (as is claimed as their numbers) warriors takes some time. The Intelligence agencies must be sleeping and are frankly not worth their pay!

I am certain we are not getting the entire truth - and I am certain that much of this is about OIL, as always.

[scipio_usmc]

I understand your dilemma, although it's a fine line between scepticism and paranoia.

I guess it can be a case of believing that one action was politically orchestrated (The First Iraq War/Operation Desert Storm perhaps), therefore it is possible, or even likely in your view that history would repeat itself.

The difficulty comes when there are 10 genuine causes and one manufactured cause (or whatever numbers you want to use), how do you differentiate.

Personally I don't have the same concerns, but perhaps that would be different if I felt it affected me or my family in some way. 

It's an interesting subject, but maybe not one with many answers?

The conspiracy claims were made during both Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom.  All the allegations about how the US was acting just to steal Iraq's oil turned out to be complete bunk.

I don't know what people think the West has to gain from staging ISIS attacks in order to motivate public opinion against ISIS.  The only reason the West wants to act against ISIS is because Islamic Extremists are a threat.  There is nothing that can pose and ulterior motive.  There is no potential gain that could benefit the West.  Already some are again claiming the West wants to steal oil, it gets old.

The conspiracy theories make no sense.  This is not the 1890s.  The colonial era is gone.



 

[No-Bits]

The conspiracy claims were made during both Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom.  All the allegations about how the US was acting just to steal Iraq's oil turned out to be complete bunk.

I don't know what people think the West has to gain from staging ISIS attacks in order to motivate public opinion against ISIS.  The only reason the West wants to act against ISIS is because Islamic Extremists are a threat.  There is nothing that can pose and ulterior motive.  There is no potential gain that could benefit the West.  Already some are again claiming the West wants to steal oil, it gets old.

The conspiracy theories make no sense.  This is not the 1890s.  The colonial era is gone.

I've messed up a bit, I was trying to refer to the claim by the British Government that there were weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq,  whereas that turned out to be inaccurate.
That was claimed to be the reason why we joined the conflict.

[maggie]

The conspiracy claims were made during both Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom.  All the allegations about how the US was acting just to steal Iraq's oil turned out to be complete bunk.

I don't know what people think the West has to gain from staging ISIS attacks in order to motivate public opinion against ISIS.  The only reason the West wants to act against ISIS is because Islamic Extremists are a threat.  There is nothing that can pose and ulterior motive.  There is no potential gain that could benefit the West.  Already some are again claiming the West wants to steal oil, it gets old.
The conspiracy theories make no sense.  This is not the 1890s.  The colonial era is gone.

It's always wise to keep an open mind and to be aware that much more goes on than the general public knows about.  I am not a conspiracy theorist in general, find many of them irrational and rediculous however, there's nothing wrong with questioning and being aware that all is not always quite as it seems and that the western world is far from innocent and has stirred up trouble in many countries in the past and no doubt in the present for their own ends.
I am as horrified as anyone else at the murderous acts and am aware ISIL are a real  threat to the world I don't believe the west are squeaky clean in all this and as usual the poor, the innocent and the dispossessed are paying a dreadful price. .

[scipio_usmc]

I've messed up a bit, I was trying to refer to the claim by the British Government that there were weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq,  whereas that turned out to be inaccurate.
That was claimed to be the reason why we joined the conflict.

But the conspiracy claim is that they knew there were no active WMD programs (there were programs which could have been resumed when desired) and the true motivation was to steal oil. 

The evidence is quite clear that Saddam wanted people to think he had WMDs because he felt that would make them fear him more.  It worked the world's intelligence agencies believed it.  It simply had the reverse result than the one he expected.

What did the UK or US have to gain from acting other than WMDs?  What did the US or UK take from Iraq?  Far from taking any treasure or oil from Iraq we gave blood and treasure.  The US spent a fortune in Iraq to try to build a functioning democratic state.  What did we have to gain from such beyond Iraq being a democratic state?  Nothing.
   
Conspiracy theorists completely ignore the inability to identify any ulterior motive that pans out.  What is there to gain in fighting ISIS beyond fighting extremism?  There would have to be some gain.

This is not the case of the Nazis taking dead German prisoners and sticking Polish Army uniforms on them an dpretending they attempted an invasion of Germany and thus Germany has a right to invade Poland.  The Poles denied such and it was quite obvious the Germans saged it to provide a bogus pretext.  The goal was clear to see- they wanted to invade Poland to annex it and the pretext was for such purpose. 

ISIS admits they killed the prisoners

ISIS says they will kill more innocent people including prisoners.

ISIS has comitted various atrocities not unlike Nazi mass executions.  Their war crimes are not in question.

It is not the case like in 1939 where Poland denied invading Germany and the claim they did was absurd and clearly staged.

In the meantime there is no ulterior benefit that destroying ISIS could provide, the only benefit is the one of eliminating an enemy that is committing heinous acts. 

[No-Bits]

I wasn't arguing that Scip. 

[Roch]

But the conspiracy claim is that they knew there were no active WMD programs (there were programs which could have been resumed when desired) and the true motivation was to steal oil. 

The evidence is quite clear that Saddam wanted people to think he had WMDs because he felt that would make them fear him more.  It worked the world's intelligence agencies believed it.  It simply had the reverse result than the one he expected.

What did the UK or US have to gain from acting other than WMDs?  What did the US or UK take from Iraq?  Far from taking any treasure or oil from Iraq we gave blood and treasure.  The US spent a fortune in Iraq to try to build a functioning democratic state.  What did we have to gain from such beyond Iraq being a democratic state?  Nothing.
   
Conspiracy theorists completely ignore the inability to identify any ulterior motive that pans out.  What is there to gain in fighting ISIS beyond fighting extremism?  There would have to be some gain.

This is not the case of the Nazis taking dead German prisoners and sticking Polish Army uniforms on them an dpretending they attempted an invasion of Germany and thus Germany has a right to invade Poland.  The Poles denied such and it was quite obvious the Germans saged it to provide a bogus pretext.  The goal was clear to see- they wanted to invade Poland to annex it and the pretext was for such purpose. 

ISIS admits they killed the prisoners

ISIS says they will kill more innocent people including prisoners.

ISIS has comitted various atrocities not unlike Nazi mass executions.  Their war crimes are not in question.

It is not the case like in 1939 where Poland denied invading Germany and the claim they did was absurd and clearly staged.

In the meantime there is no ulterior benefit that destroying ISIS could provide, the only benefit is the one of eliminating an enemy that is committing heinous acts.

The US went to Iraq to fight and decisively win a war.  The policy was outlined here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Look at the second point in the four core missions that needed to be established:

'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars'. 

Where the Americans seemed to go wrong was not with decisively beating the Iraqi forces, Republican Guard and Comical Ali et al.  In those respects, the core mission was achieved.  It was the chaos that grew within vacuum left by the removal of Saddam Hussein / Baathist rule -  the so called 'insurgency' that the US and its allies somehow overlooked or refused to consider.  Disparate Iraqi forces and foreign fighters basically waged a secterian guerilla war lasting years and inflicting heinous casualties among the Iraqi population. 

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Your very own CIA Whistleblower Susan Lindauer has described how the Iraqi regime was threatened with war behind the scenes by Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George W Bush, prior to 9/11.   Three men who were committed to the US 'fighting and decisively winning multiple simultaneous major theatre wars'.

The Iraqi regime were panicking and offered to fully cooperate on any matter the US demanded them to. They were desperate to avoid war, desperate to have sanctions lifted.  They offered for the US to send an FBI team to Baghdad to hunt down and apprehend any person linked to terrorism.  The US did not send any such team.

[ngb1066]

The US went to Iraq to fight and decisively win a war.  The policy was outlined here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Look at the second point in the four core missions that needed to be established:

'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars'. 

Where the Americans seemed to go wrong was not with decisively beating the Iraqi forces, Republican Guard and Comical Ali et al.  In those respects, the core mission was achieved.  It was the chaos that grew within vacuum left by the removal of Saddam Hussein / Baathist rule -  the so called 'insurgency' that the US and its allies somehow overlooked or refused to consider.  Disparate Iraqi forces and foreign fighters basically waged a secterian guerilla war lasting years and inflicting heinous casualties among the Iraqi population. 

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Your very own CIA Whistleblower Susan Lindauer has described how the Iraqi regime was threatened with war behind the scenes by Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George W Bush, prior to 9/11.   Three men who were committed to the US 'fighting and decisively winning multiple simultaneous major theatre wars'.

The Iraqi regime were panicking and offered to fully cooperate on any matter the US demanded them to. They were desperate to avoid war, desperate to have sanctions lifted.  They offered for the US to send an FBI team to Baghdad to hunt down and apprehend any person linked to terrorism.  The US did not send any such team.

Well said Roch.  I agree entirely.  Scipio is an apologist for the Bush administration.

 

[Roch]

Well said Roch.  I agree entirely.  Scipio is an apologist for the Bush administration.

Neil, do you mind if I ask you whether you have any concerns regarding the potential for so called 'false flag' incidents linked to ISIS?

Could I also ask whether you find the whole ISIS event suspicious in any way or form?

[No-Bits]

Neil, do you mind if I ask you whether you have any concerns regarding the potential for so called 'false flag' incidents linked to ISIS?

Could I also ask whether you find the whole ISIS event suspicious in any way or form?

Have you read about the raids in Australia today/yesterday Roch?

[ngb1066]

Neil, do you mind if I ask you whether you have any concerns regarding the potential for so called 'false flag' incidents linked to ISIS?

Could I also ask whether you find the whole ISIS event suspicious in any way or form?

I think there is huge potential for "false flag" incidents linked to IS/SIS/ISIL or whatever they are currently called.  It greatly concerns me.  We are likely once again to be drawn into military action which could have catastrophic consequences.

 

[Roch]

Have you read about the raids in Australia today/yesterday Roch?

Harters, I've just read the BBC News report on the subject thanks to you pointing it out.  I was not aware of it.

[Roch]

I think there is huge potential for "false flag" incidents linked to IS/SIS/ISIL or whatever they are currently called.  It greatly concerns me.  We are likely once again to be drawn into military action which could have catastrophic consequences.

Thanks for your response Neil.  I understand this is controversial and against the current grain:  How confident are you personally, that the three recent beheading incidents are genuine, as per portrayed in media?