Jeremy Bamber Forum
OFF TOPIC => General => Topic started by: guest154 on September 13, 2014, 11:24:PM
-
Seems as ISIS has beheaded British Hostage David Haines after their threat to carry out the disgusting act, they have a second British hostage who they are saying is next.
Such an awful thing to go through.
Should be hitting the news shortly.
-
Alan Henning named as the next hostage to be beheaded is their demands aren't met. Alan Henning is British.
What would you response be to such evil?
Whilst I was on Holiday I saw American news host Bill O'Reilly say "bomb them, bomb them and bomb them again."
Hard to disagree.
-
Alan Henning named as the next hostage to be beheaded is their demands aren't met. Alan Henning is British.
What would you response be to such evil?
Whilst I was on Holiday I saw American news host Bill O'Reilly say "bomb them, bomb them and bomb them again."
Hard to disagree.
Mat its not very often I discuss politics, but bombing must be the last resort in my opinion, but on saying that we must never ever let our guard down and must do everything in our power to get this chap released and bombing them wont make an apathe of difference to these barbaric people, that's if I can call them people.
Its OK for us to sit here in our armchairs and say "Yes lets bomb them" but there will always be the Innocent folk that will die as a consequence of such actions
But, I equally believe that we should stand firm and nip this in the bud before it escalates any further. Calling this action humanitarian is good for mankind. :(
-
Alan Henning named as the next hostage to be beheaded is their demands aren't met. Alan Henning is British.
What would you response be to such evil?
Whilst I was on Holiday I saw American news host Bill O'Reilly say "bomb them, bomb them and bomb them again."
Hard to disagree.
I would agree.
-
Alan Henning named as the next hostage to be beheaded is their demands aren't met. Alan Henning is British.
What would you response be to such evil?
Whilst I was on Holiday I saw American news host Bill O'Reilly say "bomb them, bomb them and bomb them again."
Hard to disagree.
Mat, I can fully understand that sort of emotional response. I remain convinced that the death sentence was wrong -I never saw it as a deterrent, just the punishment attributed to a certain crime- but I STILL say of certain criminals, ie, Brady, Hindley, the Wests and Huntley, THEY SHOULD HANG.
-
Alan Henning named as the next hostage to be beheaded is their demands aren't met. Alan Henning is British.
What would you response be to such evil?
Whilst I was on Holiday I saw American news host Bill O'Reilly say "bomb them, bomb them and bomb them again."
Hard to disagree.
They are vile, disgusting excuses for human beings, who hide behind religion in order to excuse their violent nature, They are cowards and deserve to die screaming - I hate the DP but it's too good for them. I can't express in words how much I despise these creeps but I don't agree with bombing UNLESS it could be guaranteed that ordinary decent people wouldn't be caught up in the cross fire - enough innocent people have died.
-
The world must act and fast vermin like this will sweep over the globe , time to use of chemical weapons should bring things to a close.
-
I dont wish to seem callous or disrespectful or to cause offence. But I find the whole ISIS thing very fishy. And that includes these video'd incidents of 'beheadings'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29201317
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-fiction-of-fighting-the-islamic-state-an-entity-created-and-financed-by-the-u-s-and-saudi-arabia/5398833
-
I dont wish to seem callous or disrespectful or to cause offence. But I find the whole ISIS thing very fishy. And that includes these video'd incidents of 'beheadings'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29201317
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-fiction-of-fighting-the-islamic-state-an-entity-created-and-financed-by-the-u-s-and-saudi-arabia/5398833
Roch some of my workmates are ex Army some say its all to get our troops on the ground there today in the paper doubts are now raised if any such crimes have been committed at all a few weeks carpet bombing and they may well have had enough there are over 30,000 of this scum to take out.
-
I dont wish to seem callous or disrespectful or to cause offence. But I find the whole ISIS thing very fishy. And that includes these video'd incidents of 'beheadings'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29201317
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-fiction-of-fighting-the-islamic-state-an-entity-created-and-financed-by-the-u-s-and-saudi-arabia/5398833
Hi Roch, so where are the victims?
-
I dont wish to seem callous or disrespectful or to cause offence. But I find the whole ISIS thing very fishy. And that includes these video'd incidents of 'beheadings'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29201317
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-fiction-of-fighting-the-islamic-state-an-entity-created-and-financed-by-the-u-s-and-saudi-arabia/5398833
I think it's very difficult to make such comments without appearing tactless. (I know that isn't your intention though).
Although I don't quite understand what you are actually suggesting? ???
-
Hi Roch, so where are the victims?
Hi Caroline, I have no idea and I suppose it would depend upon exactly who was behind the incidents if there are indeed hoaxes. I'm not saying that they definitely are. It's just that personally, at this stage, I dont feel confident that they definately are not.
-
I think it's very difficult to make such comments without appearing tactless. (I know that isn't your intention though).
Although I don't quite understand what you are actually suggesting? ???
Thanks for understanding that it isn't my intention. I'm concerned that (some) terrorist events as portrayed in mainstream media could potentially be staged in order to manipulate public opinion. It is possible that some security services could have involvement in this manipulation.
Now it could be that these particular nasty incidents we are discussing are genuine acts of savagery committed by ISIS or whatever their current name is. I accept that these men could have been genuinely held as known hostages for a period of time and then killed by ISIS.
There is no way for me to know for definite either way from what I have seen. But what I am no longer prepared to do is to accept such things (as portrayed in media) without questioning or scepticism.
-
Thanks for understanding that it isn't my intention. I'm concerned that (some) terrorist events as portrayed in mainstream media could potentially be staged in order to manipulate public opinion. It is possible that some security services could have involvement in this manipulation.
Now it could be that these particular nasty incidents we are discussing are genuine acts of savagery committed by ISIS or whatever their current name is. I accept that these men could have been genuinely held as known hostages for a period of time and then killed by ISIS.
There is no way for me to know for definite either way from what I have seen. But what I am no longer prepared to do is to accept such things (as portrayed in media) without questioning or
scepticism.
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
-
Thanks for understanding that it isn't my intention. I'm concerned that (some) terrorist events as portrayed in mainstream media could potentially be staged in order to manipulate public opinion. It is possible that some security services could have involvement in this manipulation.
Now it could be that these particular nasty incidents we are discussing are genuine acts of savagery committed by ISIS or whatever their current name is. I accept that these men could have been genuinely held as known hostages for a period of time and then killed by ISIS.
There is no way for me to know for definite either way from what I have seen. But what I am no longer prepared to do is to accept such things (as portrayed in media) without questioning or scepticism.
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?
-
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. :-\
-
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!!!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. .
-
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.
-
I wasn't arguing that Scip. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
I think they are genuine because if they were not too many people, in particular family members, would have to be in on the scam. However other incidents would be perfectly possible to organise as false flag operations. For example, the use of poison gas in Syria and bombings, rocket attacks etc. These I always view with great suspicion.
The first internationally famous false flag event was the Reichstag fire. It was effective and resulted in Hitler and the Nazis gaining total control.
-
I think they are genuine because if they were not too many people, in particular family members, would have to be in on the scam. However other incidents would be perfectly possible to organise as false flag operations. For example, the use of poison gas in Syria and bombings, rocket attacks etc. These I always view with great suspicion.
The first internationally famous false flag event was the Reichstag fire. It was effective and resulted in Hitler and the Nazis gaining total control.
Thanks for your opinion on this Neil. I've stated my self that these could be genuine, savage acts committed by extremists.
I've also tried to rationalize how it might be possible to achieve the faking these scenarios.
One the one hand, if the victims were ever discovered alive in the future, it could be claimed by US or other powers that ISIS themselves had faked the beheadings (though this would prove difficult because questions would arise as to how the beheadings were not officially identified as being fake in the first place).
Another option would be to pay enormous amounts of money to each victim, providing them with a new identity and effectively buying their silence. The CIA do buy people. And their spending power is immense.
There is a third option which is more depressing and I'm sure people could work it out.
I remain 50/50 on whether these incidents are genuine or not. But I know one thing for sure, the result of the incidents is to elevate the threat of ISIS in the minds of people across the world, thereby hastening the demise of ISIS via American / NATO weaponry.
That doesn't really add up for me in relation to ISIS wanting an Islamic Caliphate, as the Caliphate would effectively be destoyed?
-
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.
You seem to be suggesting that the US goal was simply to wage war for no reaosn other than to be able to do so.
PNAC was not the US government yet didn't advocate that either.
You are ignoring that the bullet point you selected states simply they favored the US military being kept at a force level which would enable the US to fight 2 wars simultaneously in 2 different theaters. That was the same force level we were at during the Cold War they simply advocated returning to such levels.
The rationale behind wanting Saddam replaced was to get rid of his WMD threat. So long as he remained in power he was a threat to his neighbors and we had to keep our forces in Saudi Arabia which happens to be a major reason Bin Laden wanted to hit the US- because he wanted our infidel forces out of Saudi Arabia.
-
You seem to be suggesting that the US goal was simply to wage war for no reaosn other than to be able to do so.
PNAC was not the US government yet didn't advocate that either.
You are ignoring that the bullet point you selected states simply they favored the US military being kept at a force level which would enable the US to fight 2 wars simultaneously in 2 different theaters. That was the same force level we were at during the Cold War they simply advocated returning to such levels.
The rationale behind wanting Saddam replaced was to get rid of his WMD threat. So long as he remained in power he was a threat to his neighbors and we had to keep our forces in Saudi Arabia which happens to be a major reason Bin Laden wanted to hit the US- because he wanted our infidel forces out of Saudi Arabia.
Are you happy that America is a friend of Saudi Arabia?
-
Well said Roch. I agree entirely. Scipio is an apologist for the Bush administration.
Far from it, I am a realist. The notion the US just wanted to wage war for the sake of waging war is nonsense and the PNAC was simply a think tank not an arm of the US government. The US got rid of Saddam in exchange for what? What did we take from Iraq? We took nothing from them all we did was spend blood and treasure to give them a democracy. We did such to benefit Iraqis, the safety of our allies who were threatened by Saddam and to prevent Iraq from having the opportunity to share WMDs with extremists. Iraq was under sanctions and subject to inspections because:
They invaded a neighbor and had WMD programs and the fear was Saddam would produce WMDs and threaten his neighbors again. He fooled the World into thinking he had active programs by playing cat and mouse games. What we found out was that he had sleeper programs ready to start up again as soon as sanctions ended which means sanctions would have to have lasted forever to thrwart him.
Conspiracy theoreists always come up with TV stories of war being just to wage war. They have no understanding at all of what war really is. I suggest studying Clauswitz.
-
Are you happy that America is a friend of Saudi Arabia?
I have no problem with the US being an ally of Saudi Arabia so long as Saudi Arabia stamps out Islamic fundamentalists. When Saudi Arabia sponsors trouble then we need to get on top of them but you have more influence as an ally in trying to change their policy than you do as an enemy.
The only way you can effectively confront enemies is by force and that only goes so far as well. Whether force can be of use depends on the circumstances and the nature of the problem.
The situation in Ukraine is a good example. No one has the balls to actual help Ukraine by arming them better so they can defeat the Russian sponsored insurgency and to deter further Russian aggression by making Ukraine a NATO member. No one wants to risk a war over Ukraine. That is the same attitude of course that Hitler thrived on. Of course Russia would not go to war with the West over Ukraine though so the fears or a war by helping are unwarranted and Russia would be deterred from invading if Ukraine did become part of NATO because insane is one thing Putin is not.
Invading Saudi Arabia to establish a democracy where we impose western values on them would be unjustifiable. You try to lobby them to change and put pressure that you can in terms of an allied relationship you don't take over unless someone is a major threat to other countries. That is both because the public won't tolerate such interventions but also because that is International Law. That is why Russia trying to take over a country doing nothing to it or any other country is not justifiable under International law. Putin made it clear he wanted to make sure Crimea was taken over before Ukraine could join NATO because he didn't want a NATO naval base there. Putin has a colonial mentality instead of a 21st Century mentality. People like him only understand force and threat of force and it must thus be used to challenge him. It is sheer hypocrisy to kill tens of thousands in Chechnya then claim Ukriane has no right to preserve its borders.
China is a horrible regime and yet the US is still friendly with China for economic reasons. The interwoven world economies actually helps discourage war. Russia could not afford to stop selling petrol and oil to Europe its economy could collapse which just makes the lack of guts even more pathetic.
Most countries are not willing to aid others out of principle they do so when there is some economic threat of not acting. The threat to Middle Eastern Oil is why the World acted against Saddam. What oil is in Syria? Syria was a major supporter of terrorism and threat in terms of WMDs so there was a reason to aid the rebels but no one did and now look at the mess.
The best solution is one that would be hard. Forming a government in exile and helping such government take over every inch of Syria so expelling Assad as well as the extremeists. How do you pick the government in exile and to make sure extremists are not part of their orignaization? You would have to make them form a constitution or something of that sort befor earming them so that if successful you have a system you can trust. We didn't do that in Iraq or Afghainsitan and it was a mistake.
People don't want to put the effort in though instead they want to just bomb and hope somebody will defeat ISIS somehow without knowing what those people will then do. It's a freaking joke. Military force is a continuation of politics by other means. The current political leaders of the US and most other countries are all grossly incompetent fools who have no real understanding of politics including the polical art of military power. They neither understand its limits nor how to effectively use it in those instances where it is actually valuable.
-
'What oil is in Syria' I assume you are joking? I predict that Iran will be the next US target. This is all about the US wanting to control the oil - nothing more!
-
'What oil is in Syria' I assume you are joking? I predict that Iran will be the next US target. This is all about the US wanting to control the oil - nothing more!
A little bit, it would appear. :-\
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria#Oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria#Oil)
-
A little bit, it would appear. :-\
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria#Oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria#Oil)
Maybe this is the clue though? :-\
From wiki:
Although Syria produces relatively modest quantities of oil and gas, its location is strategic in terms of regional security and prospective energy transit routes.
-
I noted that form 2012 Syria no longer trades in oil to the Countries that were showing on the map due sanctions. :)
-
currently oil is sold in us dollars if it wasnt the dollar would collapse.
iraq tried to sell oil in euros iran wanted to sell oil for gold that's what this is all about.
libya was trying to create a single African currency all of this would of sunk the us dollar.
-
Exactly nugs! Also, it is worth looking at the NWO geo political plan, which is - To control the natural resources of the world. To control the markets for those resources. To control the transit routes,sea lanes and pipeline routes for those resources.
-
personally its more about currency than natural resources not that they don't play a part.
America couldn't run 4 trillion budget deficits if the dollar wasn't the worlds reserve currency and its on the worlds reserve currency because oil is sold in dollars.
-
A little bit, it would appear. :-\
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria#Oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria#Oil)
Too little for the World to care. In the meantime there are many unemployed malcontents ripe for recruiting for Islamic terroristic endeavors but the World's politicians were too stupid to consider that aspect.
-
personally its more about currency than natural resources not that they don't play a part.
America couldn't run 4 trillion budget deficits if the dollar wasn't the worlds reserve currency and its on the worlds reserve currency because oil is sold in dollars.
China and other countries don't exchange in dollars. The sale of bonds is how the US spends more than it takes in, in revenue. The largest foreign buyer is China which doesn't trade oil in dollars.
You don't seme to know much about economics just the fairytales on the Web. Why isn't the Canadian or Australian dollars worthless? What is traded in them?
In the meantime those that do trade in US dollars only do so on paper they convert to their own currency to pay typically. The same way that I paid for an item I purchased from the UK in dollars but the payment was converted on paper to pounds so that the recipient received pounds though I paid in dollars.
If the US can't meet its bond payments then you will see the dollar collapse. That is what makes a currency collapse when there is either hyperinflation or an inability to pay creditors.
If Democrats remain in power that could come to pass one day as they seem to want to spend far more than can be afforded without any care in the World.
-
China and other countries don't exchange in dollars. The sale of bonds is how the US spends more than it takes in, in revenue. The largest foreign buyer is China which doesn't trade oil in dollars.
You don't seme to know much about economics just the fairytales on the Web. Why isn't the Canadian or Australian dollars worthless? What is traded in them?
In the meantime those that do trade in US dollars only do so on paper they convert to their own currency to pay typically. The same way that I paid for an item I purchased from the UK in dollars but the payment was converted on paper to pounds so that the recipient received pounds though I paid in dollars.
If the US can't meet its bond payments then you will see the dollar collapse. That is what makes a currency collapse when there is either hyperinflation or an inability to pay creditors.
If Democrats remain in power that could come to pass one day as they seem to want to spend far more than can be afforded without any care in the World.
chinna only did that recently at the time of the iraq invasion it still was.
fact all the 4 oil producing nations who tried to sell oil in anything other than dollars were attacked or destabelised by the usa.
without the dollar being major currency the fed could of never issued that many bonds and expected anybody buy them.
-
'What oil is in Syria' I assume you are joking? I predict that Iran will be the next US target. This is all about the US wanting to control the oil - nothing more!
I think during the Bush regime it was also about Israel/Mossad teaming up behind the scenes with US NeoCons/CIA, to destroy Israel's 'enemies'.
Remember when the US delegation walked out of the UN conference, after Ahmendinejad gave a speech suggesting three possible options for 9/11 having been an inside job? He knows the score, as I expect does every security service and notable leader around the world.
Some people seem prepared to accept the notion that the 'US may have known about the pending terror attacks and let them happen' while in the same breath saying 'but I dont believe in 9/11 conspiracies'. This seems to be a bit of a bizarre position to hold :-\
-
The government are now going to bomb IS targets. Unfortunately they will just end up killing the innocents. You cannot kill a belief with violence or bombs and guns. To win a war with a religion you must first conquer their hearts and minds.
-
The government are now going to bomb IS targets. Unfortunately they will just end up killing the innocents. You cannot kill a belief with violence or bombs and guns. To win a war with a religion you must first conquer their hearts and minds.
Very true Mr Gee.
-
ISIS isn't about religion. They are there in order to make themselves rich. Why else take over the oil fields?
-
ISIS isn't about religion. They are there in order to make themselves rich. Why else take over the oil fields?
Maybe not Tyler, but they are attacting a lot of young men and women that are religious and they use their beliefs in order to get support.
-
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-history-of-isis-beheadings-part-of-the-training-manual-of-us-sponsored-syria-pro-democracy-terrorists/5402566
-
http://www.globalresearch.ca/sotloff-video-found-by-group-connected-to-homeland-security-and-responsible-for-releasing-fake-osama-bin-laden-video/5399056
-
ISIS isn't about religion. They are there in order to make themselves rich. Why else take over the oil fields?
I'm starting to wonder whether the whole thing is bullshit. I'm sure they physically exist to some extent. But who's been paying for them, who's been training them and who's been equipping them? Who has infiltrated them? Who is running them? And for what purpose? How come they moved like lightening to take over huge swathes of a country which is a similar size to France? I bet the official story we are being peddled is complete tosh. I do not believe that security services would not be several steps ahead of any genuine threat from a genuine ISIS (in Iraq / Syria). I also wonder how easy it is for our Govt to track any ISIS volunteers travelling to or from the area of the middle east in question. I suspect it is not difficult.
-
Maybe not Tyler, but they are attacting a lot of young men and women that are religious and they use their beliefs in order to get support.
Looks like they have been set up to draw out loads of stupid young men who are bored shitless with life in the UK (cant blame them). All of these so called radicalised men or women can then be tracked or pinpointed by intelligence services (which will come in quite handy, as they can be monitored and if neccessary blackmailed or coerced in to doing something that will influence public opinion to be more in favour of military action). America and others (while in the process of supposedly battling ISIS) can then re-carve up that region of the middle east more to their and Israel's liking (after having originally made a complete hash of previously doing so).
-
You seem to be suggesting that the US goal was simply to wage war for no reaosn other than to be able to do so.
PNAC was not the US government yet didn't advocate that either.
You are ignoring that the bullet point you selected states simply they favored the US military being kept at a force level which would enable the US to fight 2 wars simultaneously in 2 different theaters. That was the same force level we were at during the Cold War they simply advocated returning to such levels.
The rationale behind wanting Saddam replaced was to get rid of his WMD threat. So long as he remained in power he was a threat to his neighbors and we had to keep our forces in Saudi Arabia which happens to be a major reason Bin Laden wanted to hit the US- because he wanted our infidel forces out of Saudi Arabia.
Scip... Let's see what Gen Wesley Clark had to say about what he was told in late September/October 2001...
-
Scip... Let's see what Gen Wesley Clark had to say about what he was told in late September/October 2001...
<iframe width=\"420\" height=\"315\" src=\"//www.youtube.com/embed/9RC1Mepk_Sw\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Very worrying. I always thought they went to war with Iraq on the false assumption that they had weapons of mass destruction as a distraction because they couldn't fins Osama Bin Laden? And after many years of searching where did they find him? In his house. ;D
-
Scip... Let's see what Gen Wesley Clark had to say about what he was told in late September/October 2001...
<iframe width=\"420\" height=\"315\" src=\"//www.youtube.com/embed/9RC1Mepk_Sw\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Clark tried to run against Bush in 2004 but lost the nomination he is a Democrat who made the nonsense just to attack Bush.
The US didn't go to war with Iraq until 2003 an donly after giving Saddma more opportunities to comply.
Clark refused to identify the supposed person so the perosn could not be asked if Clark lied or even if he told Clark but was lying himself. There obviously was no such person nor is this alleged memo credible:
"So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”
No such memo was found by those who investigated the invasion afterwards though they had classified access to the records. The reason why is it clearly didn't exist. The US took no efforts to do anything in any other countries.
Clark has a history of lying. He also went on TV and claimed that he received a phone call from people in the White House telling him to link the 9/11 attacks to Iraq. He was eventually forced to admit he received no such calls from anyone in the US government he claimed it was someone from a Canadian Think Tank named Thomas Hecht. Aside from not being connected to any governments, Hecht said that he merely discussed with Clark that there were possible links between Iraq and international terrorism in general because iraq was harboring known terrorists.
It was so absurd the mainstream press that hated Bush didn't even bother printing his nonsense.
-
intresnting vid here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vhvVsEhFOY
-
intresnting vid here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vhvVsEhFOY
Is is BS though. The Mujahideen were not Islamic fundamentalists and far from the US stirring them up we simply help arm them better than they already had been and helped them coordinate their efforts better. After the USSR left they each had control of certain areas. It remained that way until Pakistan helped the Taliban take control. The Taliban were Islamic fundamentalists. The Taliban established control over much but not all of the country some was stilll held by warlords who had been part of the Mujahidden. The US helped these groups to drive the Taliban from control.
-
Sad to hear IS have beheaded Alan Henning now.
-
Sad to hear IS have beheaded Alan Henning now.
A senseless act a barbaric act! To kill an innocent man, film it then put it on the internet is most evil by cowards.
What can be done to stop this? What ever happened to out elite SAS...
My heart goes out to his family, they must be devastated. I hope the press will leave the family in peace. :'(
-
A senseless act a barbaric act! To kill an innocent man, film it then put it on the internet is most evil by cowards.
What can be done to stop this? What ever happened to out elite SAS...
My heart goes out to his family, they must be devastated. I hope the press will leave the family in peace. :'(
I believe the SAS are already out there Patti. I think there will be payback for this?
-
Is is BS though. The Mujahideen were not Islamic fundamentalists and far from the US stirring them up we simply help arm them better than they already had been and helped them coordinate their efforts better. After the USSR left they each had control of certain areas. It remained that way until Pakistan helped the Taliban take control. The Taliban were Islamic fundamentalists. The Taliban established control over much but not all of the country some was stilll held by warlords who had been part of the Mujahidden. The US helped these groups to drive the Taliban from control.
yes they were why osma bin laden was fighting with them
they invited bin laden to live there before the talbian came to power.
if any watch the film the facts are pretty clear.
-
yes they were why osma bin laden was fighting with them
they invited bin laden to live there before the talbian came to power.
if any watch the film the facts are pretty clear.
In one of the Rambo films the Mujahideen were helping him against the Russians. :)
-
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CGAQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsone.com%2F1205745%2Fcia-osama-bin-laden-al-qaeda%2F&ei=DxovVIO8IoPcaPH0gbgH&usg=AFQjCNFACROEFSAgoJ9mvro7VD8T7rm8cg&sig2=8NcVlgqJF5KFk_mf_5sINQ&bvm=bv.76802529,d.d2s
-
I believe the SAS are already out there Patti. I think there will be payback for this?
I hope so...Why could they not rescue him? Poor poor man.
-
I hope so...Why could they not rescue him? Poor poor man.
They probably don't know where the hostages are Patti?
-
Go to war with the monsters and show them we mean business instead of pussyfooting around and allowing this to happen ( being trained in this country,some of them ) War is what they're inciting,so let them have it,regardless. It will continue otherwise. They're subhuman !!
-
I hope so...Why could they not rescue him? Poor poor man.
the goverment dont want them rrescued they want them dead so theyve got an excuse to bomb.
-
the goverment dont want them rrescued they want them dead so theyve got an excuse to bomb.
::)
-
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC4QqQIoADAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Fblog%2F2014%2F09%2Fgovernment_threatened_hostage_families_with_prosecution_if_they_raised_ransom_money.html&ei=HuUvVJDKHdOxabSCgOgI&usg=AFQjCNEiwJrQtQ3F9sjfr0WGGCSjXBxo7Q&sig2=9wa2NFORBq-GaCtudI_jFQ&bvm=bv.76802529,d.d2s
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zj4rEhW5ZI
-
the goverment dont want them rrescued they want them dead so theyve got an excuse to bomb.
Certainly wouldn't suprise me if this was the case. The truth behind these incidents may be even worse than this.
-
well why was the family of one of the hostages prevented from paying a ransom.
-
well why was the family of one of the hostages prevented from paying a ransom.
Because they live in a country where it is illegal to do so. No conspiracy there.
-
ransoms have been paid before.
the sas are out there dont seem to have been any effort to rescue them.
-
Family of hostage gagged by UK Govt.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/alan-henning-murdered-hostages-brother-condemns-government-over-gagging-of-family-9778757.html
I wonder whether the official reason given for this stands up to scrutiny.
-
what that they prevented the family saying things that they have been saying themselves.
its pretty bloody outrages really telling the hostages family's they cant speak publicly.
what gives the goverment the right to do that.