Most recent activity
-
Thanks for letting me know.
-
Yes, and now they are controlling the minds of said Islamic terror group with magnets so that they won't come out and say that, hey, in fact we did not kill Foley.
-
I think two separate issues are at risk of being run together in debates such as this. One is the entirely reasonable view that there are motives and powers that politicians don't want you to know about. Another is the view that politicians have godlike capabilities to control the media and the public debate. Accepting the first does not lend any credibility whatsoever to theories that would require accepting the second. Similarly, it is one thing to say that the jihadists have edited the video and another thing to say that it's a stunt pulled out by the US. The first statement is a form of reasonable skepticism; the second one is a form of tinfoiled conspiracymongering. It is simply disingenuous to try to lump them together under some vague umbrella term such as 'media management'.
-
What I'm saying is that it would not be worth the risk for the US to conduct a conspiracy such as this just in order to gain some additional support for their military campaign which they already had underway before the beheading. There has been a steady stream of news about the atrocities committed by ISIS during the spring and the summer: it's not as if the group would have had many political friends in Europe or the US before Foley's murder.
-
If its so boring or mundane how exactly is this event so significant in the development of US policy in Iraq as it forces them to re-engage with military action?
The beheading took place after the US had already engaged in military action in Iraq. The atrocities committed by ISIS have been regularly in the news this year*. The events in Iraq would have served as a sufficient justification anyway if Obama had decided that it's something he wants to do**.
*Tinfoil translation: the Western Propaganda Campaign.
**Tinfoil translation: the Economic Powers whose puppet Obama is. -
In that case the US would not have had any reason to publish any details about the rescue attempt in the first place.
It's a matter of probabilities. Consider first the likelihood that it was done by the terrorists who kidnapped Foley and several others, beat him up regularly according to numerous eyewitness accounts, were particularly keen to damage the US, couldn't benefit from him financially and have continuously beheaded their captives in recent years. Consider next the likelihood that Obama decided to take one of the biggest political risks of his career just in order to gain some more moral justification for something he could have done anyway. Now calculate the odds and tell me what I should rationally believe.
-
Can you guess which books the wannabe jihadists Yusuf Sarwar and Mohammed Ahmed ordered online from Amazon before they set out from Birmingham to fight in Syria last May? A copy of Milestones by the Egyptian Islamist Sayyid Qutb? No. How about Messages to the World: the Statements of Osama Bin Laden? Guess again. Wait, The Anarchist Cookbook, right? Wrong. Sarwar and Ahmed, both of whom pleaded guilty to terrorism offences last month, purchased Islam for Dummies and The Koran for Dummies.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119182/jihadists-buy-islam-dummies-amazon
-
Surely the dichotomy here is between liberalism versus totalitarianism rather than, say, capitalism versus totalitarianism?
-
I'm not saying...but...
That's the beauty of conspiracy theories, isn't it? A lot of things happen and some theories can be supported with anecdotes and general handwaving. All the better if it's coupled with some reasonable points about politics and how everything is very complicated.
Re the claim that about 10% of cyclist deaths happen in roads with segregation: this should be (i) related to the volume of cyclists in those roads and (ii) stated with the appropriate margin of error. This is, of course, an absolutely trivial point.
I am a firm proponent of full segregation, although I think that it would be much more cost effective to start by placing a daytime ban on lorries. These are the types of vehicle that really make the roads shit for everyone, not just cyclists. I'm well aware that this will be countered with the 'economy innit' argument, to which the only answer is that, yeah, it is true that modern cities are build for the business and not for the people who actually live there.