ISIS beheads US Journalist James Wright Foley

a reply to: flammadraco

ppphhhheeeeeewww thanks for the post, a bit scary tho..

After just reading through the whole thread, I can't understand why a lot of people are blaming GWB. It doesn't add up.

If we want to blame anyone for ISIS blame the Syrian civil war, WHERE ISIS came out of, if that civil war never happens than no ISIS am I right?

Which also brings me to another thing IF we had went into Syria would ISIS even be around right now?

To be more on the topic, has it crossed anyone mind's that, the guy in the video doing the dirty work, is one of the recently released or trained by one of the recently released??

Hate to say it but, the reality of the situation is going to be at some point and time a full fledged offensive by land, air, and sea.

People have asked why would they fake it?
To sell a war. You cannot justify actions to Americans without it looking like a reaction. We cannot strike first, ha! We are too 'civilized to terrorize.'

a reply to: IXApollyonXI

Many, many, many more people die at the hands of the elite and their employees for profit than these Islamic militants have even thought about killing. You can even say these extremists mostly only exist because of the killing and other evils the western forces inflict upon their lands and people. The blood is equally on the hands of the western warmongers as it is on the people who commited the murder.

a reply to: wutang717

The connection of ISIS taking over Iraq is not limited to the present administration, remember that It was under Bush that Iraq was invaded, destabilized with an open door to what is going on now, both administration past and present are at fault in many ways with terrible policies on how to handle Iraq.

a reply to: thismilitarywife

In my opinion, if its a choice between believing he was killed and feeling the empathy and compassion that every human should feel when this happens, or not believing and putting myself in existential relation to the death of another person by obsessing over a possible conspiracy at hand - I think I would choose the former.

Everything in life is probability. No one can ever know - beside the killers and James Folely, whether what we saw was real or not. But I find the fault for not believing - when you can't ever know for certain - is worse than the fault from believing and being gullible.

As a psychologist, it appals me how unaware so many people who believe in conspiracy theories are of their own internal and personal emotions and what role their past history is playing in "framing" how we look at reality. This is why I am so dearly committed to the cause of mindfulness is schools. People need to learn about the dynamics of their minds; the facts that have emerged from cognitive science, developmental and psychopathological psychology, as well as recent theories in interpersonal psychoanalysis, create a picture that is consistent with the non-linear transformation in how we view the sciences nowadays. Self is thought of in terms of the CONTEXT of the social. Cells in the context of the organs and body they operate within. Natural processes - and human influences - within the ecological context of an Earth system within space. Everything nowadays is context dependent: scientists are realizing that reduction doesn't lead to understanding: it leads to the uncomfortable revelation that the smallest processes are affected by larger system dynamics.

That said, this society has a lot of uneducated, not very self aware people who are subjectively caught up in the process of "sharing what they know" (or wanting to control the objects i.e the listeners - understanding) with other people. But they don't understand that their process of understanding is being unconsciously shaped by dissociated affect dynamics (shifts in emotion that occur when people communicate with one another). All that is in the speakers mind - if he isn't aware of himself as he discusses something - is the object of his interest (what hes talking about).

Do you see the problem? This site is about "denying ignorance". What greater ignorance could there be than not paying attention to the emotional-psychological dynamics which emerges unconsciously as affect changes? Nothing tops that. The process is more basic than the content (or thing thought).

So with this, I'm going to go with the position: He was actually killed, this is horrendous. Because on multiple grounds I see no justification in assuming that the west wants to get pulled back into Iraq. To what good? For what reason? To draw this conclusion ignores everything we know - and therefore determines our epistemological range - about Barak Obama's philosophy and political doctrine, the bulk of which is directed towards shrinking the military budget and paying more attention to domestic issues (health care, etc). To just say: He wants more war! - boggles the imagination. And implies a naivety about human nature. By which I mean, the multiple states of self which influence our perception of the world. Obama, and all other politicians, it's safe to say, are humans just like us (Unless they're a) clones, b) reptilians c) illuminati black magicians ) and therefore deal with complexities similar to our own. True, I'll grant that more sociopaths find positions of power than their proportion in the general population (assumed to be 1-2%, as "neurologically" sociopathic) would suggest, but overall the vast majority of our elected leaders possess a conscience. They do have ideals. They have been affected by the discovering made by science, psychology and neuroscience in particular, and philosophically, our society is growing more towards openness towards the "strange" - a veritable therapeutic orientation that'll help people think in more basic, less constrained ways, with less dissociation and less enactments of their unresolved relational traumas (which is what causes us to be as unruly and undisciplined as we are).

That being said, what happened to James Folely is horrific. Accepting that as fact, I can then "free" my mind to think about the really crazy nonsense: Islamism. Islamism is a real force with a legitimate historical and psychological basis for it's existence: the west started the scientific-humanistic revolution. They fixed their sociological orientation enough to "free" the "repressed" energies that Christianity imposed. Christianity, like Islam, assumed state control. Christianity, like Islam, regulated what was explored and talked about (constriction on mental possibilities). But Christianity, and Judaism, unlike Islam, has not undergone mass-transformation.

Todays Islamic problem is the creation of historical context and nothing else. Sure, you can blame the west for taking advantage of their advantage by throwing Muslim countries into a position of "servant" - but that dialectic was already established before Europe emerged in the 17th century as a world superpower. It began in our thinking; in our cultural understanding. Islam, unfortunately, has not had that "public conversation". They will have it. It'll likely come. But because their societies are both a) poor, and b) radicalized by ancient religious/political convictions, these two forces serve to mutually dysregulate one another. Being poor frustrates them and allows more primal concerns to becoming interesting and being radicalized by religion causes you to ignore the state of the society - the problems which exist, and an ability to PROPERLY diagnose those problems. Islamism supports poverty by making Islamic societies politically unstable.

So, this is just sad. Stupid and ignorant islamists doing barbaric and outrageous things to other human beings; and we in the west trying to help the humanists in the middle east - like a therapist - we recognize the problems "there" and our friends there will work with us to do something about this cancerous tumor.

originally posted by: Firefly_
a reply to: IXApollyonXI

The blood is equally on the hands of the western warmongers as it is on the people who commited the murder.

Hell no. One does not excuse the other and the USA has certainly effed up parts of the Middle East, but the unrest we have seen in recent years has been native unrest in the form of the Arab Spring and other revolts.

Frankly, your rhetoric above sounds like something an ISIL idiot would mutter before beheading someone.

a reply to: marg6043

Yet Obama's policy has been ten folds worse than Bush, his do nothing and it'll figure itself out has only made things greatly worse, his pull out was a joke, and now instead of having to deal with Al-Qaeda, we get their bigger, nastier cousin to deal with instead.

If only Obama didn't put so much time and money on the Arab Spring cleaning of dictators, THAN maybe we wouldn't have to be dealing with ISIS.

We all have got to remember that ISIS came from and made it's name from the Syrian Civil War.

Bush had nothing to do with the current situation we are in, Unless of course Bush was president from the years 09-13, I do tend to forget.

I think its Time For some American Mercenary's make a Video

of A PIG's Blood & Pig FAT Party.. on Some Captured ISIS Members.


Like Dunking their Heads in a Bucket of Pigs Blood!!!!!!!







Muslim Extremist's Should Have a REBOOT in this Tale

General Black Jack Pershing - Waterboarding is for Sissies
www.sodahead.com...

The soldiers then soaked their bullets in the pig’s blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad. The soldiers dug a large hole, dumped in the terrorist’s bodies, and covered them in pig blood, pig entrails, etc. Then they let the 50th man go. And for the next 42 years there was not a single Muslim extremist attack anywhere in the world. Perhaps it’s time for history to repeat itself in Iraq and Afghanistan? The question is, where do we find another Black Jack Pershing?

Ohh By the way

SNOPES.COM

One of the Biggest Call out Sites of the World of a True or False in claims from Rumors to Urban Legends Tales Myths

Is on the Fence and has Considered this General Pershing: Pig Blood Execution and Burial with Pigs For Muslim Terrorist Story :: Undetermined



Pershing the Thought
www.snopes.com...

a reply to: Astrocyte

I think you were referring early in your thoughtful post about the psychology of reductionism….a worthy topic and relevant to the conspiratorial minded.

But I look at conspiracy theories as mere possibilities, perspectives that may have degrees of reality though without expending the usual dogma to them and making them part theological such as an Alex Jones or Dave Icke.

Regarding the Islamist topic you mention. I know their mind because I spent time with them and they suffer form the usual cultic mind as well the lower tier of what the science of Spiral Dynamics elucidates as "Survival/Sense. The Instinctive vMEME along with negative aspects of lower memes as well such as "PowerGods. The Egocentric vMEME.

That corralled with leaders who virtually are of the same mind set of a Charles Manson spells trouble as we see now for those coming in contact with such a low consciousness.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: wutang717

I agree, that Obama policies in the middle east have been disastrous to no only the US but to the countries involved, but remember that the invasion of Iraq and started with Bush and the withdraw of troops from Iraq was Obama.

If we never had gotten into that country things will be a lot different.

I predict another build up of US forces in Iraq with the next president.

www.ibtimes.co.uk...

Here in the UK we are being warned that watching the video could lead to prosecution under terrorism laws. They seem able to use their spying to keep the people in check but struggle to keep tabs on the extremists leaving the country to wreak havoc and hell. You can never convince me that a British extremist doesn't have a phone or use the internet.
Unless this is a double bluff then I can't see it being fake and then warning the public they could face prosecution for even watching it. Big brother is only watching the masses who pose a threat to their own agenda, namely, us. Yet they tell us our freedom is being curtailed so that they can protect us from terrorists? Really?

I have not watched the video but I also thought that it sounds as if it has been edited probably due to the actual revolting act not going accordingly. How inhumane must you have become to be able to do that?

However IS has been created and by whom for whatever reasons, they are clearly lunatics without compassion and empathy; human traits that distinguish us (usually). They are slaughtering any group who does not support their religion, in this instance due to their systematic destruction of everything not ISIS I hope we rid the planet of this scourge rather than attempt to dismantle them, any group that blinded by it's own ideology will not simply dissolve and will remain true to it's terror campaign.

If we become tolerant of a group that is intolerant of any other group then the outcome is pretty straightforward IMHO

My thoughts are with the family. How would you even begin to try and come to terms with it.... Ever???

I find being human more shameful the older I become.

a reply to: Indigo5

Maybe I should start with you? I don;t see how blaming both equally excuses either. You are either misreading what I wrote, or just reading what you want to.

The IS lunacy is an opportunity for the world to come together and erase a human virus.

But Obama just doesn’t have the imagination to do that….The inner strength to just outreach to other nations and create a coalition to do what’s got to be done.

Obama doesn’t even have the personality to get along with his own democratic party let alone other leaders of allied countries. He’s too aloof and condescending.

He’s a small minded insular man with little breadth of experience or outlook and no vision.

The leader in Turkey won’t even talk to him and other leaders don’t like him either not even in his own party.

Also his advisors are not up to the job. Susan Rice, his national security advisor, is a total idiot. She is the one who advised Bill Clinton to let the Rwanda massacre happen without the UN or US stopping it when they could have easily don’t that.

They are both small thinkers who are out of their element.

Kerry isn’t really an experienced diplomat. He sometimes means well but is a senator not a foreign policy expert.

Obama said, very ignorantly months ago, that IS was the JV’S to Al Qaeda. I think it’s his administration that is the JV’S.

It’s not that he is a democrat that is the problem. The greatest war president we had was FDR a democrat voted in 4 times!

A Kennedy, Truman, and of course Roosevelt and a Republican, Eisenhower would know what to do with ISIL.

a reply to: PurpleHorizon

Here's the legislation they are using;

Scotland Yard has issued a statement warning that “viewing, downloading or disseminating extremist material within the UK may constitute an offence under terrorism legislation”.

The relevant legislation is sections one and two of the Terrorism Act 2006, which can be viewed in full Here

I thought it was illegal in the UK to view but for different reasons, mainly morality.

Edit - can only assume that our American cousins would have a similar law?

You know a thought I keep having the worse the situation(s) in the middle east seems to get?

That damn 'hoax' letter from Albert Pyke to Giuseppe Mazzini.

S*it is getting too real lol.

a reply to: marg6043

I get what your saying but your still trying to blame Bush for something he just did do.

You'd have to go back to LBJ or Nixon if you want to 'blame,' any president. The fact still remains that Obama had plenty, PLENTY of chances to do something about ISIS and he DIDN'T! He would rather play another round of golf.

We can play the blame game all we want but this just gets us no where, if we never invade Iraq, I can assure you, that the Arab Spring would have still happened but to a much, much greater degree. GHWB started the Iraq war GWB just finished what his father should have ended. Plus if Bush doesn't invade Iraq I can guarantee you that people would be criticizing him even more than nowadays.


Side note: Doesn't anyone remember back in early June when ISIS was roaming around in a single file convoy line? Why the hell didn't we send even one drone just one? This really baffles me.

originally posted by: thismilitarywife
People have asked why would they fake it?
To sell a war. You cannot justify actions to Americans without it looking like a reaction. We cannot strike first, ha! We are too 'civilized to terrorize.' ... literally what a general said last week at a change of command ceremony.

So where are all these "actors" ? There are many people who have been executed by extremists and labelled "staged". Every plane crash is "staged". Every dead Boston marathon runner "staged". Every passenger on 4 flights on the 11th sep "staged". Jesus H. where the hell are all these actors ? Mars ??? Living it up on a planet we are conned into thinking is red n dead ? Living the dream in some far off unreachable part of the Earth?

Or maybe....oh my god...maybe. The world does have sick extremists who chop peoples heads off or torture them for sheer pleasure or some sick ideological execution...like Vlad the impaler , or the khymer rouge, or the Nazis , etc etc....until we reach the 21st century when all of sudden these kind of people no longer exist and are misunderstood individuals and everything is committed by the evil west and Nato and EU........ hmmmmm

originally posted by: Willtell

Obama said, very ignorantly months ago, that IS was the JV’S to Al Qaeda. I think it’s his administration that is the JV’S.

It’s not that he is a democrat that is the problem. The greatest war president we had was FDR a democrat voted in 4 times!

A Kennedy, Truman, and of course Roosevelt and a Republican, Eisenhower would know what to do with ISIL.

WOW!! If I could I'd give you more than just one star! This has been the realist statement in this thread.

a reply to: wutang717

I just heard on the news that after Obama's "inspiring" speech he went golfing!