Greenwald: US Media Driving ISIS Opinion, Lessons of Iraq Forgotten

[nayjevin]

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/08/lesson-americans-refuse-learn-war/

Gallup, 2000: “A new Gallup poll conducted November 13-15, 2000 finds that nearly seven out of 10 Americans (69%) believe that sending troops to Vietnam was a mistake.”

Gallup, 2013: “Ten years have passed since the United States and its allies invaded Iraq, and it appears the majority of Americans consider this a regrettable anniversary. Fifty-three percent of Americans believe their country ‘made a mistake sending troops to fight in Iraq’ and 42% say it was not a mistake.”

Gallup, 2014: “For the first time since the U.S. initially became involved in Afghanistan in 2001, Americans are as likely to say U.S. military involvement there was a mistake as to say it was not.”

New York Times, today: “The Obama administration is preparing to carry out a campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria that may take three years to complete, requiring a sustained effort that could last until after President Obama has left office, according to senior administration officials.”

CNN, today: “Americans are increasingly concerned that ISIS represents a direct terror threat, fearful that ISIS agents are living in the United States, according to a new CNN/ORC International poll. Most now support military action against the terrorist group.”

More at link

 

[jmdrake]

From the link.

(1) I’ve long considered this September, 2003 Washington Post poll to be one the most extraordinary facts about the post-9/11 era. It found that – almost 2 years after 9/11, and six months after the invasion of Iraq – “nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks . . . . A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it’s likely Saddam was involved.”

And ^that is why some of us believe that the most import thing to do for liberty is to make sure that Americans know the truth about 9/11 and false flag terrorism. It drives public opinion. I'm not even talking about the esoteric stuff like how the buildings came down. Just knowing who really funded and controlled the operation speaks volumes. The same thing is true about ISIS. Our government funding of jihadists is the problem. Unless the truth of this becomes widely known, the neocons will control the solution.

 

[Muwahid]

From the link.

(1) I’ve long considered this September, 2003 Washington Post poll to be one the most extraordinary facts about the post-9/11 era. It found that – almost 2 years after 9/11, and six months after the invasion of Iraq – “nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks . . . . A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it’s likely Saddam was involved.”

And ^that is why some of us believe that the most import thing to do for liberty is to make sure that Americans know the truth about 9/11 and false flag terrorism. It drives public opinion. I'm not even talking about the esoteric stuff like how the buildings came down. Just knowing who really funded and controlled the operation speaks volumes. The same thing is true about ISIS. Our government funding of jihadists is the problem. Unless the truth of this becomes widely known, the neocons will control the solution.

Seems like you don't know who funded and controlled the operation yourself.

 

[maybemaybenot]

Seems like you don't know who funded and controlled the operation yourself.

This from a guy who blatantly makes up facts, and then calls them strawman positions when he's called out on them? Oh please, tell us who funded and controlled the operation?

 

[Muwahid]

This from a guy who blatantly makes up facts, and then calls them strawman positions when he's called out on them? Oh please, tell us who funded and controlled the operation?

Al Qaeda and their backers (not CIA).

 

[jmdrake]

Seems like you don't know who funded and controlled the operation yourself.

Never claimed I didn't. That's the kind of information that is the 28 redacted pages that Ron Paul and Thomas Massie want released. You should try to do something useful and support that effort.

 

[jmdrake]

Al Qaeda and their backers (not CIA).

Oh....but you don't think there is proof that groups like Al Qaeda are really that bad. At least not when they operate in Syria and Iraq and/or change their name to al-nusrah or ISIS.

 

[Muwahid]

Oh....but you don't think there is proof that groups like Al Qaeda are really that bad. At least not when they operate in Syria and Iraq and/or change their name to al-nusrah or ISIS.

You scared of the boogeyman still?

 

[mosquitobite]

You scared of the boogeyman still?

Apparently the American people tend to be.

 

[jmdrake]

You scared of the boogeyman still?

I'm neither scared nor am I naive. You have a split personality on the issue though. On the one hand you believe Al Qaeda killed 3,000 Americans by their lonesome and without any real proof. On the other hand you demand proof, even after it is given, that Al Qaeda/ISIS is committing atrocities in Syria. Oh they kill journalists....but they would't kill children.

 

[Muwahid]

I'm neither scared nor am I naive. You have a split personality on the issue though. On the one hand you believe Al Qaeda killed 3,000 Americans by their lonesome and without any real proof. On the other hand you demand proof, even after it is given, that Al Qaeda/ISIS is committing atrocities in Syria. Oh they kill journalists....but they would't kill children.

So you think beheading American and Israeli nationals who work for western organizations and are operating within a country they consider their own, is akin to taking a little child and cutting his or her head off?

Like I said I'm personally against the execution of journalists but it's also not entirely illogical to see why they did that (US bombs 'their' country, killing 'their' people, so they kill US citizens).

Also LOL'd at no proof for Al Qaeda carrying out the 9/11 attacks. They admitted to it. In a court of law if someone commits a crime and admits to it, that's sufficient evidence isn't it? Pleading guilty?

And why the hell is it so irrational to think people could possibly hijack a plane as if it never happened before. Was black september an inside job? Serious question.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Rinse repeat.

[h=1]2003: Washington Post ran 27 editorials in favor of Iraq invasion[/h]

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Iraq War 3 is not going to accomplish any more than Iraq Wars 1 & 2

 

[AngryCanadian]

From the link of the poll.

“nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks

I believe those Americans are NeoCons.
Cant believe idiots still believe it.

 

[jmdrake]

So you think beheading American and Israeli nationals who work for western organizations and are operating within a country they consider their own, is akin to taking a little child and cutting his or her head off?

I'm saying that someone capable of beheading an adult non combatant is capable of beheading a child. I'm saying that there has been credible witness evidence of children being killed. I'm saying that the groups you are apologizing for have openly said that their policy is that Christians in their path must convert or leave or die. You wanted an "official statement?" I gave you one. I'm saying that that official statement didn't say "Oh but if you are a little child we will let you live." If you want to bury your head in the sand because you don't want to overly criticize people who have been "helpful" to the "Arab spring" then just say it.

Like I said I'm personally against the execution of journalists but it's also not entirely illogical to see why they did that (US bombs 'their' country, killing 'their' people, so they kill US citizens).

And the reason they want to kill or expel Christians who have been peaceably living in the region for years is.....?

Also LOL'd at no proof for Al Qaeda carrying out the 9/11 attacks. They admitted to it. In a court of law if someone commits a crime and admits to it, that's sufficient evidence isn't it? Pleading guilty?

If you don't believe the official statements from ISIS that they seek to kill Christians and they made no exception for children, then why do you believe official statements from Al Qaeda? You are arbitrarily selective in what you call evidence.

And why the hell is it so irrational to think people could possibly hijack a plane as if it never happened before. Was black september an inside job? Serious question.

It's irrational to believe that it's a coincidence that some of them came through America through an immigration desk later exposed by a whistleblower to be a route the CIA brought in questionable characters.

It's irrational to believe the Bush administrations claim that "nobody conceived of hijacked airplanes being used as flying bombs" when there were multiple war games run before and on 9/11 using that exact scenario.

It's irrational to believe that Donald Rumseld couldn't find out the answer to the simple question of who ordered the war games prior to and on 9/11 that simulated hijacked airplanes as flying bombs.

It's irrational to believe that WTC 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, collapsed at the speed of a controlled demolition just from some structural damage on one corner and some burning carpet and office supplies.

It's irrational to believe that it's just a coincidence that some of the hijackers trained at a U.S. military base.

It's irrational to believe that men who's flight instructors said they couldn't fly a Cessna were able to make a corkscrew turn, skim the ground and hit the Pentagon. It's irrational to believe they would even do that maneuver when the easiest was to attack, and the attack that would have resulted in the most kills, would have been to dive straight for it.

And if you want to talk about previous terrorist attacks, it's irrational to believe that the 1993 WTC bombing, where an FBI informant made the bomb after asking his handlers if he could just use harmless powder, was just some "sting job gone wrong" when nobody in the FBI was ever held to account for that.

It's irrational to believe that Al Qaeda carried out this entire operation by themselves when members of the 9/11 commission have stated publicly that foreign involvement in 9/11 was censored from the final report.

Now what's a rational belief? Well it's totally rational how, considering the fact that after every major terrorist attack you have multiple groups clamoring to take credit for it, that OBL took credit for an operation he wasn't involved in. Or he could have been involved as a patsy. But did it by himself? No way in hell.

 

[jmdrake]

From the link of the poll.


I believe those Americans are NeoCons.
Cant believe idiots still believe it.

That poll was from 2003. Most Americans no longer believe that. But it shows the danger of letting leaders get away with blatant lies. The poll:

The lie:

 

[Muwahid]

I'm saying that someone capable of beheading an adult non combatant is capable of beheading a child. I'm saying that there has been credible witness evidence of children being killed. I'm saying that the groups you are apologizing for have openly said that their policy is that Christians in their path must convert or leave or die. You wanted an "official statement?" I gave you one. I'm saying that that official statement didn't say "Oh but if you are a little child we will let you live." If you want to bury your head in the sand because you don't want to overly criticize people who have been "helpful" to the "Arab spring" then just say it.

LOL what? Killing a non-combatant is the same as killing a child? These journalists held US/Israeli citizenship, they worked for foreign news organizations, and because IS considers that land their own, they are seen as illegally operating within the country, that's the basis for at least imprisoning them, and the execution was simple revenge.

If you actually can't see the difference you're hopeless.

Also your representation of their policy towards Christians is rather skewed... the real policy is

1 - Convert
2 - Leave
3 - Stay and pay Jizyah
4 - Become enemies of the state

And the reason why the fourth option is there is to say they're rejecting the authority of the state by not paying a tax. The Jizyah was covered by me in great detail so I won't delve in here, but the demonization of it, is quite laughable true Shar'iah gives Christians an extremely high level of autonomy.

What should their fifth option be for it to be fair? Stay, don't pay taxes, don't recognize the state, maybe collude with our enemies?

You're all about sensationalism these days aren't you jmdrake, I swear its like some of the Christians here truly want to believe Christians there are being slaughtered en masse to forward their own political or theological ideologies.

I mean I thought people would be happy if they were educated on topics such as jizyah and treatment of ahlul dhimmah under Islamic system (like we actually can live peacefully) but instead I find people trying to find every excuse to claim its unfair and evil and harmful when that's just not the case.

 

[jmdrake]

LOL what? Killing a non-combatant is the same as killing a child?

I didn't say that and you know it. I said that someone capable of killing a non-combatant is capable of killing a child. Once you go down the road of killing innocent people it's a slippery slope. What makes killing a child wrong in general? Because of there perceived innocence. If a 10 y/o boy is shooting at you then killing him is justified.

These journalists held US/Israeli citizenship, they worked for foreign news organizations, and because IS considers that land their own, they are seen as illegally operating within the country, that's the basis for at least imprisoning them, and the execution was simple revenge.

Ah. That makes it alright then. And what's your excuse for ISIS officially telling Iraqi Christians leave, convert or die? You know that ultimatum as given includes children right?

If you actually can't see the difference you're hopeless.

If you are going to deceitfully misrepresent my position then YOU are hopeless. If you are going to ignore the fact that ISIS threatened Christian children in an official statement then YOU are hopeless. If you are going to ignore eyewitness accounts of them killing children and pass that off as "propaganda" when you've already admitted that they are killing people who haven't attacked them then YOU are hopeless.

Also your representation of their policy towards Christians is rather skewed... the real policy is

1 - Convert
2 - Leave
3 - Stay and pay Jizyah
4 - Become enemies of the state

And so a child of a Christian who stays but refuses to pay the extortion tax is an "enemy of the state" and his murder is justified.

And the reason why the fourth option is there is to say they're rejecting the authority of the state by not paying a tax. The Jizyah was covered by me in great detail so I won't delve in here, but the demonization of it, is quite laughable true Shar'iah gives Christians an extremely high level of autonomy.

What should their fifth option be for it to be fair? Stay, don't pay taxes, don't recognize the state, maybe collude with our enemies?

So now you recognize ISIS as a legitimate state? Interesting.

I mean I thought people would be happy if they were educated on topics such as jizyah and treatment of ahlul dhimmah under Islamic system (like we actually can live peacefully) but instead I find people trying to find every excuse to claim its unfair and evil and harmful when that's just not the case.

Right. I should be "happy" that you seemed hell bound and determined to explain away terrorism while attacking Israel for "slaughtering children". Really, you undermine your own cause. I'm being educated as to just how unreasonable people like you are. Keep up your "education" and you will start turning people who were sympathetic to the Palestinian cause into full fledged islamophobic zionists.

 

[Muwahid]

And so a child of a Christian who stays but refuses to pay the extortion tax is an "enemy of the state" and his murder is justified.

Sigh. This is why discussion with uneducated people is so frustrating. Do you know who the Jizyah applies to?

Men only
Who are 'military age'
Who have no disabilities

The Jizyah applies to no one else. Historically this is because Muslim men manned the city garrisons to defend from invasions, and are meant to die to protect ahlul dhimmah because that's our promise to them if they live with us. The Christians and others obviously are exempt it's not their responsibility, but they pay in return to maintain those garrisons.

 

[jmdrake]

Sigh. This is why discussion with uneducated people is so frustrating. Do you know who the Jizyah applies to?

Men only
Who are 'military age'
Who have no disabilities

The Jizyah applies to no one else. Historically this is because Muslim men manned the city garrisons to defend from invasions, and are meant to die to protect ahlul dhimmah because that's our promise to them if they live with us. The Christians and others obviously are exempt it's not their responsibility, but they pay in return to maintain those garrisons.

You know what? I don't give a crap. If you are trying to apologize for terrorists that are beheading people than go right ahead. I see you refused to answer my question DO YOU CONSIDER ISIS TO BE A LEGITIMATE STATE! If they aren't then even under Islamic law the Jizyah shouldn't apply. If you do consider them a legitimate state, then you are further gone than I thought.