SCGNews: The Covert Origins Of ISIS

[twomp]

No. Do you personally know every single Libyan? Are all of them happy now that Al Qaeda has ruined their country?

He's a shill. He knows everyone! Israelis, Saudi Arabians, Syrians, Libyans, he knows them all. He just had lunch with a few of them the other day.

 

[jllundqu]

Having served in the military, I have been to Iraq, Kuwait, Egypt, Saudi, Qatar, and Turkey. I fought in western Iraq against Libyans and Syrians, as well as a whole host of others. Muwahid is just misinformed. He is playing the "I'm a muslim, so I know more than you!" card, but has failed to objectively look at the actual results of U.S. foreign policy. Libya is a perfect example. Libya is by no means better off NOW then when the 'dictator' was in power.

 

[Muwahid]

No. Do you personally know every single Libyan? Are all of them happy now that Al Qaeda has ruined their country?

So in your estimation, you need to know every person from a country to be able to gauge whether or not the general (or at least a large minority) populace likes or dislike their leadership? I know some Libyans, not many but being an Arab, I have a little more exposure to Arab's opinions. Or is that asinine?

Are you purposefully being a dumbass? The "freedom index" report is not the same as a contentment index report. I know people who just LOVE Obamacare. You and I know it's socialist and will eventually bankrupt the country. That doesn't mean some people don't like it. That said there were quite a few black Africans who had "voted with their feet" and moved to Libya. They were raped and massacred by your believed Libyan "freedom fighters". Since you apparently personally know Libyans do you know the ones who carried out these crimes?

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16051349

It's haraam to be malicious so please cease and desist.

Second, I was not the one to site a "human development report" as proof Libyans loved their government. I cited reports regarding corruption, oppression, and inequality in Libya. What we know about the situation in Libya under Gaddafi (not like it's some secret), is the population was spied on, the leader was a dictator, it was illegal to disagree with the government, and it even shows internal strife between Gaddafi and tribes (further cementing the idea that a revolution was very possible without the need for a provocateur).

So what do they rank Libya now that it's under the rule of Al Qaeda? I guess now that the Al Qaeda rebels pillage, rape and behead Christians Libya is more free? Or maybe it's the fact that the Al Qaeda rebels created a central bank that makes Libya more free?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world...ibyan-rebels”-create-central-bank-oil-company

"Partially Free" from "Not Free". And leave sensationalism out of this.

You support Al Qaeda. I get it now.

Lol ok then?

 

[Muwahid]

Having served in the military, I have been to Iraq, Kuwait, Egypt, Saudi, Qatar, and Turkey. I fought in western Iraq against Libyans and Syrians, as well as a whole host of others. Muwahid is just misinformed. He is playing the "I'm a muslim, so I know more than you!" card, but has failed to objectively look at the actual results of U.S. foreign policy. Libya is a perfect example. Libya is by no means better off NOW then when the 'dictator' was in power.

I'm not playing any card, I'm fully explaining my rationale.

And can someone please tell me where I even made an opinion public regarding whether or not Libya is better now or with Gaddafi? My position is that it is obvious that Libyans, Syrians, Egyptians, etc. would want to rebel against their leaders. They are dictators known for spying, and torturing people who disagree with the state.

Dont try to misrepresent my views.

 

[Muwahid]

Wait a fucking minute! I thought you were claiming that the "moderate" FSA had nothing to do with ISIS. Now you're claiming that ISIS really isn't that bat after all and it's just all "propaganda"? Who's being the conspiracy theorist?

You're a little slow so I'm gonna get you up to speed.

My views and positions are my best interpretation of the truth. I hold no ideological position regarding the middle east. If I see Muslims behaving badly I will condemn such actions if I see them behaving in a dignified manner I will likewise condone such actions.

Do you think, I should flat out condemn any organization regardless of the validity of the claim?

Well that seems to be your method, as long as it supports your ideology, having concrete proof is secondary. I don't operate like that... if the Iraqi government claims IS killed 500 Yazidis including children but provides no evidence, and this becomes a "moral" justification for war, of course, I will oppose that. If warhawks (or conspiracists-- for other motives obviously) are throwing around propaganda, showing dead children and claiming their killers are IS when they're really the Shabiha, I will oppose this... to use the death of innocent women and children to forward an ideology in my opinion is sick and disgusting, and their real killers should be highlighted.

 

[jmdrake]

You're a little slow so I'm gonna get you up to speed.

My views and positions are my best interpretation of the truth. I hold no ideological position regarding the middle east. If I see Muslims behaving badly I will condemn such actions if I see them behaving in a dignified manner I will likewise condone such actions.

Do you think, I should flat out condemn any organization regardless of the validity of the claim?

I think that it's laughable that your willing to give ISIS the benefit of the doubt while attacking a fellow Ron Paul supporter for merely pointing out that obvious truth that some people might like the goodies given out by a socialist regime. Really, you're a joke.

Well that seems to be your method, as long as it supports your ideology, having concrete proof is secondary. I don't operate like that... if the Iraqi government claims IS killed 500 Yazidis including children but provides no evidence, and this becomes a "moral" justification for war, of course, I will oppose that. If warhawks (or conspiracists-- for other motives obviously) are throwing around propaganda, showing dead children and claiming their killers are IS when they're really the Shabiha, I will oppose this... to use the death of innocent women and children to forward an ideology in my opinion is sick and disgusting, and their real killers should be highlighted.

The rebels in Syria were themselves releasing video of committing atrocities. But hey, if you want to go all "conspiracy theory" then are you ready to rethink 9/11? After all the only evidence of Osama Bin Laden's involvement is video that appeared to be doctored of him praising the attacks. You want to talk about my method? You don't seem to have one. You just kind of make it up as you go along.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm not playing any card, I'm fully explaining my rationale.

And can someone please tell me where I even made an opinion public regarding whether or not Libya is better now or with Gaddafi? My position is that it is obvious that Libyans, Syrians, Egyptians, etc. would want to rebel against their leaders. They are dictators known for spying, and torturing people who disagree with the state.

Dont try to misrepresent my views.

What exactly are your views? You seem to be saying now that we can't believe ISIS to be bloodthristy tyrants even though they officially claim to be bloodthirsty tyrants. It's all supposedly a "conspiracy" by the Iraqi government to make them look bad....except they were already looking bad before their latest Iraqi offensive from the atrocities they were committing in Syria. Oh....but that was just propaganda by the Syrian government right? And the American government is in on this conspiracy. And ISIS doesn't release a statement on the internet saying "No! It's all a lie!" because.....? But then you don't believe in conspiracy theories. Or do you?

 

[Muwahid]

What exactly are your views? You seem to be saying now that we can't believe ISIS to be bloodthristy tyrants even though they officially claim to be bloodthirsty tyrants. It's all supposedly a "conspiracy" by the Iraqi government to make them look bad....except they were already looking bad before their latest Iraqi offensive from the atrocities they were committing in Syria. Oh....but that was just propaganda by the Syrian government right? And the American government is in on this conspiracy. And ISIS doesn't release a statement on the internet saying "No! It's all a lie!" because.....? But then you don't believe in conspiracy theories. Or do you?

ISIS officially claims to be bloodthirsty tyrants? Proof?

 

[jmdrake]

So in your estimation, you need to know every person from a country to be able to gauge whether or not the general (or at least a large minority) populace likes or dislike their leadership? I know some Libyans, not many but being an Arab, I have a little more exposure to Arab's opinions. Or is that asinine?

Nope. Remember I said earlier:

Strawman argument. Please point to the time in the video where the narrator stating anything to the effect that all Libyans were "thrilled" with Khadafi. Many Americans are not "thrilled" by Barack Obama and many were not "thrilled" with George W. Bush. But if information came out that the Chinese government was funding Operation Wall Street that would have, and should have, been a major scandal. It's a fact, not a "conspiracy theory", that Hillary Clinton's state department funded the "peaceful protests" in Syria from the beginning.

What part o "Many Americans are not thrilled by Barack Obama" are you too dense to understand? In any society there are large groups of people who aren't thrilled by their government. That doesn't nullify the effect of foreign agents funding regime change. Do you think there aren't a lot of people who are unhappy in Saudi Arabia? But the U.S. State Department hasn't decided to help such dissent fester and grow.

It's haraam to be malicious so please cease and desist.

A) I'm not muslim
B) Isn't it "haraam" to be dishonest? You dishonestly tried to portray someone else as being socialist simply for pointing out that Libyans were having a relatively decent standard of living when we decided to do the regime change.

Second, I was not the one to site a "human development report" as proof Libyans loved their government. I cited reports regarding corruption, oppression, and inequality in Libya. What we know about the situation in Libya under Gaddafi (not like it's some secret), is the population was spied on, the leader was a dictator, it was illegal to disagree with the government, and it even shows internal strife between Gaddafi and tribes (further cementing the idea that a revolution was very possible without the need for a provocateur).

Prevaricate all you want. The truth of the matter is there was a provocateur! And that provocateur was the U.S. government! And the reason for the provocation has jack to do with any concern about Khaddafi being a dictator. The same goes for Syria. Back in 2003 the U.S. was kidnapping people and sending them to Assad for him to torture them on our behalf. Was that bad on Assad's part? Yes. But spare me the whole "They're evil dictators" song and dance routine when A) our government worked with them because of that and B) the groups that have taken over are worse. And if you can't bring yourself to condemn these butchers then you are the one that's "slow".

"Partially Free" from "Not Free". And leave sensationalism out of this.

What "sensationalism"? I gave you the references. The Al Qaeda groups in Libya have been engaged in ethnic cleansing. If you want to say this is all "conspiracy theory" then go ahead and call yourself a conspiracy theorist. But you have to at least come up with a credible theory. Why is ISIS purposefully making itself look bad if they really aren't that bad?

 

[jmdrake]

ISIS officially claims to be bloodthirsty tyrants? Proof?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ISIS+releases+beheading+video

Really, you're trolling mighty hard today.

 

[Muwahid]

I think that it's laughable that your willing to give ISIS the benefit of the doubt while attacking a fellow Ron Paul supporter for merely pointing out that obvious truth that some people might like the goodies given out by a socialist regime. Really, you're a joke.

I think it's laughable a socialist dictator receives praise on RPF. I can post tons of proof pre-dating the Libyan civil war regarding human rights abuses, censorship, oppression by Gaddafi. Therefore it logically follows a large segment of the Libyan population did not appreciate his rule.

This is a popular mentality, whatever position the US government takes, the opposite is the "moral" one. Why can't we say, the US should leave Libya alone, while at the same time not denying human rights abuses against civilian populations? Is it possible to adopt a rational balanced view?

 

[Muwahid]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ISIS+releases+beheading+video

Really, you're trolling mighty hard today.

So I'll take that as you have no proof...

 

[jmdrake]

I think it's laughable a socialist dictator receives praise on RPF.

I guess lying isn't haraam. As I already explained, there is a difference between pointing out that some people might like socialist goodies and saying socialism is good. There is a difference between saying a dictator isn't as bad as people who release video tapes of themselves eating the hearts of their victims or beheading journalists. Apparently you think there is no proof that Libya is worse off under Al Qaeda. Believe what you wish.

 

[jmdrake]

So I'll take that as you have no proof...

I take it you are now a conspiracy theorist but without a theory. In other words your just a troll. But just about everyone already knows that.

 

[Miss Annie]

I guess lying isn't haraam. .

Nope, its taqqiya.

 

[juleswin]

ISIS officially claims to be bloodthirsty tyrants? Proof?

Actions speak louder than words.

The link below shows video of about 50 Syrian Arab army soldier beheaded and their heads put on a stick by ISIS terrorists. If videos like this is not evidence enough of their blood thirst, then I do not know what will convince you. Also since you do not believe in conspiracy theory, how about the beheading of 2 innocent American journalists? Are those barbaric acts blood thirsty enough to count?

Viewer discretion is advised. The horrific crimes of these ISIS animals will leave a lasting effect on you


50 Soldiers Beheaded And Their Heads Put On Poles

Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=190_1406399936#Cl0M0r8hBZDCR03Z.99

 

[Muwahid]

Nope. Remember I said earlier:

Strawman argument. Please point to the time in the video where the narrator stating anything to the effect that all Libyans were "thrilled" with Khadafi. Many Americans are not "thrilled" by Barack Obama and many were not "thrilled" with George W. Bush. But if information came out that the Chinese government was funding Operation Wall Street that would have, and should have, been a major scandal. It's a fact, not a "conspiracy theory", that Hillary Clinton's state department funded the "peaceful protests" in Syria from the beginning.

What part o "Many Americans are not thrilled by Barack Obama" are you too dense to understand? In any society there are large groups of people who aren't thrilled by their government. That doesn't nullify the effect of foreign agents funding regime change. Do you think there aren't a lot of people who are unhappy in Saudi Arabia? But the U.S. State Department hasn't decided to help such dissent fester and grow.

US citizens are sedentary and apathetic for the most part. I even posted information regarding Gaddafi fighting certain tribes within Libya, only to add to the proof that Libyans do have the capability to use violence as a means of revolution, something less common here (a lot in part due to believing the political system is a viable option to create change, in the Middle East, rulers are essentially kings, even those without that title).

There's no prerequisite for a clandestine operation by a foreign government(s) in order for a revolution to occur, since this is your theory it must be substantiated, if it's not substantiated don't claim it's a fact. It's just as (or probably more) logical to assume the US wished to sway the direction of the Arab swing to be "pro-western", this of course is not what happened.

A) I'm not muslim
B) Isn't it "haraam" to be dishonest? You dishonestly tried to portray someone else as being socialist simply for pointing out that Libyans were having a relatively decent standard of living when we decided to do the regime change.

A) It's still rude
B) I'm not being dishonest, I was using sarcasm to illustrate the irony of the situation (staunch libertarians claiming a wonderful life in socialist libya)

Prevaricate all you want. The truth of the matter is there was a provocateur! And that provocateur was the U.S. government! And the reason for the provocation has jack to do with any concern about Khaddafi being a dictator. The same goes for Syria. Back in 2003 the U.S. was kidnapping people and sending them to Assad for him to torture them on our behalf. Was that bad on Assad's part? Yes. But spare me the whole "They're evil dictators" song and dance routine when A) our government worked with them because of that and B) the groups that have taken over are worse. And if you can't bring yourself to condemn these butchers then you are the one that's "slow".

You're right, the US did use them for their torture methods. I'm not sure when I denied that. Again you guys need to realize me defending or opposing a certain organization does not mean I am for or against their opposites (i.e., I dislike Assad doesn't mean I like the US government who doesn't like Assad).

What "sensationalism"? I gave you the references. The Al Qaeda groups in Libya have been engaged in ethnic cleansing. If you want to say this is all "conspiracy theory" then go ahead and call yourself a conspiracy theorist. But you have to at least come up with a credible theory. Why is ISIS purposefully making itself look bad if they really aren't that bad?

Do we have any official statements from them saying they are ethnically cleansing or are we looking at a situation of they're fighting x group therefore they're ethnically cleansing (aka sensationalism). Hitler had a policy against the Jews for example, this is why we can legitimately make a claim that he ethnically cleansed.

 

[Muwahid]

I guess lying isn't haraam. As I already explained, there is a difference between pointing out that some people might like socialist goodies and saying socialism is good. There is a difference between saying a dictator isn't as bad as people who release video tapes of themselves eating the hearts of their victims or beheading journalists. Apparently you think there is no proof that Libya is worse off under Al Qaeda. Believe what you wish.

I can't take you seriously when you say "socialist goodies"

I take it you are now a conspiracy theorist but without a theory. In other words your just a troll. But just about everyone already knows that.

I learned to focus on terminology, because the nuances are important. To say it's the "official position of ISIS to be blood-thirsty tyrants" would in my mind mean they release statements saying they will indiscriminately kill people, or had no intentions of acting in a civilized way. We can point out things they did, sure, but that's not an "official position".

Nope, its taqqiya.

Taqiyyah is a Shia idea in the way you're referring to it, but you seem to like Shia, and not Sunnis. The Sunni interpretation of Taqiyyah comes from when Muslims were tortured so they were allowed to give a fake apostasy to defend themselves from torture.

Actions speak louder than words.

The link below shows video of about 50 Syrian Arab army soldier beheaded and their heads put on a stick by ISIS terrorists. If videos like this is not evidence enough of their blood thirst, then I do not know what will convince you. Also since you do not believe in conspiracy theory, how about the beheading of 2 innocent American journalists? Are those barbaric acts blood thirsty enough to count?

Viewer discretion is advised. The horrific crimes of these ISIS animals will leave a lasting effect on you


50 Soldiers Beheaded And Their Heads Put On Poles

Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=190_1406399936#Cl0M0r8hBZDCR03Z.99

I have no problem saying that's pretty grizzly, but I also see a big difference between executing combatants who are responsible for the deaths of people on your side of the conflict versus indiscriminate killings.

And I'm certainly not a fan of the journalists execution. But again look at what I'm saying, I didn't say they didn't commit violent acts, many could be seen as unjustified, but the claims that come out (raping women, beheading children, etc.) I've really found most of these to all be false, so I'm not allowed to make these distortions known?

 

[jmdrake]

US citizens are sedentary and apathetic for the most part. I even posted information regarding Gaddafi fighting certain tribes within Libya, only to add to the proof that Libyans do have the capability to use violence as a means of revolution, something less common here (a lot in part due to believing the political system is a viable option to create change, in the Middle East, rulers are essentially kings, even those without that title).

There's no prerequisite for a clandestine operation by a foreign government(s) in order for a revolution to occur, since this is your theory it must be substantiated, if it's not substantiated don't claim it's a fact. It's just as (or probably more) logical to assume the US wished to sway the direction of the Arab swing to be "pro-western", this of course is not what happened.

Nobody said Libyans lacked the capacity for violence. The Burma Twins waged a short violent revolution. But they never got outside help and their revolution died on the vine. There are people being violent in Fergason Missouri too. Using your twisted logic it wouldn't matter if the Chinese communists started sending those people money and weapons and started bombing the U.S. on their behalf.

A) It's still rude
B) I'm not being dishonest, I was using sarcasm to illustrate the irony of the situation (staunch libertarians claiming a wonderful life in socialist libya)

A) Sarcasm in this context is rude.
B) You were, and still are, being dishonest. Nobody claimed socialism was wonderful or that life in Libya was wonderful. It was a lot better than in a lot of other countries in the region. It's an absolute hellhole now that Al Qaeda has taken over.

You're right, the US did use them for their torture methods. I'm not sure when I denied that. Again you guys need to realize me defending or opposing a certain organization does not mean I am for or against their opposites (i.e., I dislike Assad doesn't mean I like the US government who doesn't like Assad).

I didn't say you did deny it. I said that to make the point that our support for regime change hand nothing to do with human rights. We threw money behind agitators and "presto chango" instant Syrian Arab Spring. Assad has been an SOB for a long time. Yet for some reason the people didn't rise up until there as some behind the scenes prompting for Washington.

Do we have any official statements from them saying they are ethnically cleansing or are we looking at a situation of they're fighting x group therefore they're ethnically cleansing (aka sensationalism). Hitler had a policy against the Jews for example, this is why we can legitimately make a claim that he ethnically cleansed.

Note to future Hitlers. Next time you attempt to kill or eject every man, woman and child of a particular ethnic group, don't make any official statements so that people who wish to can have an excuse to support you.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16051349

Oh, and rape and sexual torture is okay as long as you were a member of "x group" that dared fight against the ultimate victors. It's all "spoils of war" right?

 

[jmdrake]

I can't take you seriously when you say "socialist goodies"

What would you call it then? If you don't think that some people love wealth getting spread around when they are the beneficiaries then you are just incredibly naive and I can't take you seriously. Or maybe you don't understand the use of the word "goodies"? Hint, it in no way implies socialism is "good". An example of a socialist "goodie".



But even people addicted to socialism can sometimes be woken up.

I learned to focus on terminology, because the nuances are important. To say it's the "official position of ISIS to be blood-thirsty tyrants" would in my mind mean they release statements saying they will indiscriminately kill people, or had no intentions of acting in a civilized way. We can point out things they did, sure, but that's not an "official position".

So are you denying that the video was an official release? If someone gives you an official release of a video showing them to be bloodthirsty tyrants and telling you there is more to come then that is their official position. But you don't understand "goodies" so English terminology may be a problem for you.

Taqiyyah is a Shia idea in the way you're referring to it, but you seem to like Shia, and not Sunnis. The Sunni interpretation of Taqiyyah comes from when Muslims were tortured so they were allowed to give a fake apostasy to defend themselves from torture.

Miss Anne didn't seem to be "liking" either. I don't know where you got that from.

I have no problem saying that's pretty grizzly, but I also see a big difference between executing combatants who are responsible for the deaths of people on your side of the conflict versus indiscriminate killings.

And I'm certainly not a fan of the journalists execution. But again look at what I'm saying, I didn't say they didn't commit violent acts, many could be seen as unjustified, but the claims that come out (raping women, beheading children, etc.) I've really found most of these to all be false, so I'm not allowed to make these distortions known?

So you don't make the logical connection between someone who can kill an innocent adult and someone who can kill an innocent child. Got it. You think all of the women in Libya, Syria and Iraq who claim to have been raped by these jihadists are lying. Got it. You think the official statement made up by the leader of ISIS that all Christians in Iraq should covert or leave or face certain death is just made up propaganda. Got it.