posted November 16, 2015 04:10 PM            

But for what it's worth, a few points I've wanted to make but were not appropriate in a thread about the tragic events.

Anyone who believes that the attack was caused by America's invasion of Iraq in 2003 is falling for ISIS propaganda. ISIS wants power. ISIS wants prestege. ISIS wants a war that divides so they may recruit from the division. ISIS wants anything that makes it look like they are more than a gang of thugs carving out their turf.

ISIS are cowards. They kill innocent civilians who aren't prepared to defend themselves. They recruit the disaffected and disenfranchised to carry out their bloody deeds and teach them to kill themselves rather than to take ownership of their actions and stand before the world and claim responsibility. They seek to rule by terror and dogma rather than by ideas and example.

America certainly is not blameless for the state of affairs in the Middle East. Neither are France, GB, Germany, Russia, etc. Neither are the countries of the Middle East.

posted November 16, 2015 07:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by deepseastar:
Some hidden dissidents tweeting from within ISIS-controlled Raqqa say that France's airstrikes have not hit any civilians so far:

https://news.vice.com/article/we-spoke-to-the-activists-live-tweeting-airstrikes-on-islamic-states-raqqa-stronghold

---

posted November 16, 2015 07:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gemini Blues:
Hmmm, I'm not sure this thread will get any traction. I fear that the emotions have displaced reason and everyone is dumping in a thread that technically should be about astrology, but empathicly should be about the act and the victims.

---

Sorry if my derailing offended anyone. It's kind hard to focus on it as an isolated act.

(That note is to anyone who came to this thread via this thread.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gemini Blues:
Anyone who believes that the attack was caused by America's invasion of Iraq in 2003 is falling for ISIS propaganda.

---

To clarify I am mortified at that invasion but do not think it caused the ISIS attacks. Everyone can choose non-violence for themselves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gemini Blues:
America certainly is not blameless for the state of affairs in the Middle East. Neither are France, GB, Germany, Russia, etc. Neither are the countries of the Middle East.

---

posted November 17, 2015 07:39 AM            

The biggest victims of ISIL are Muslims, both Yazdi/Shias/Kurds of Syria/Iraq as well as the innocent Muslims who will now be targets of profiling, racism, generalization etc.

Blair and Dubya's illegal invasion of 2003 may have de-stabilized part of the Iraqi region but the actual ISIL formation was due to the bungled support to anti-Assad regime. The West had a positive intention of Democracy but did not anticipate that such a virulent force was waiting to usurp the arms meant for rebels. Some in the West know fully well about Wahabbi Wealth support for ISIL from certain Gulf Countries, but the hypocrisy of these Western Leaders is such that they will continue to do Oily business with nations who support terrorists . The general public needs to expose such leaders/corporates who knowingly deal with countries sponsoring terror.

In the long run, Muslims across the planet have to begin a renaissance/reformation of the tenets of Islam. Nobody should ever be able to use any verse or historical incident attributed to the Prophet to justify an act of terror.

posted November 17, 2015 02:39 PM            

Reposting that article to make it clickable:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/ 16/the-islamic-state-wants-you-to-hate-refugees/?tid=sm_fb

Much the same message was published today in a very interesting article in The Guardian by a former IS hostage from France, Nicolas Hénin.

He got to know his IS tormentors quite...ummm...intimately. His account, coming from someone who actually got to see their operations up close, including heinous crimes against humanity such as beheadings of fellow hostages, carries some weight because it's much nearer to reality than any conspiracy crazes or ideological warfare will ever be.

Quoting a few paragraphs from this article, and highlighting some interesting passages:

quote:

---

"I was held hostage by Isis. They fear our unity more than our airstrikes" (by Nicolas Hénin):

In Syria I learned that Islamic State longs to provoke retaliation. We should not fall into the trap

As a proud Frenchman I am as distressed as anyone about the events in Paris. But I am not shocked or incredulous. I know Islamic State. I spent 10 months as an Isis hostage, and I know for sure that our pain, our grief, our hopes, our lives do not touch them. Theirs is a world apart.

Most people only know them from their propaganda material, but I have seen behind that. In my time as their captive, I met perhaps a dozen of them, including Mohammed Emwazi: Jihadi John was one of my jailers. He nicknamed me “Baldy”.

Even now I sometimes chat with them on social media, and can tell you that much of what you think of them results from their brand of marketing and public relations. They present themselves to the public as superheroes, but away from the camera are a bit pathetic in many ways: street kids drunk on ideology and power. In France we have a saying – stupid and evil. I found them more stupid than evil. That is not to understate the murderous potential of stupidity.

(...)

It struck me forcefully how technologically connected they are; they follow the news obsessively, but everything they see goes through their own filter. They are totally indoctrinated, clinging to all manner of conspiracy theories, never acknowledging the contradictions.

Everything convinces them that they are on the right path and, specifically, that there is a kind of apocalyptic process under way that will lead to a confrontation between an army of Muslims from all over the world and others, the crusaders, the Romans.

With their news and social media interest, they will be noting everything that follows their murderous assault on Paris, and my guess is that right now the chant among them will be “We are winning”. They will be heartened by every sign of overreaction, of division, of fear, of racism, of xenophobia; they will be drawn to any examples of ugliness on social media.

Central to their world view is the belief that communities cannot live together with Muslims, and every day their antennae will be tuned towards finding supporting evidence. The pictures from Germany of people welcoming migrants will have been particularly troubling to them. Cohesion, tolerance – it is not what they want to see.

(...)

Isis will collapse, but politics will make that happen. In the meantime there is much we can achieve in the aftermath of this atrocity, and the key is strong hearts and resilience, for that is what they fear. I know them: bombing they expect. What they fear is unity.

---

posted November 17, 2015 03:16 PM            

We should for instance realize that every Western transgression, such as the Iraq invasion with its hundreds of thousands of dead civilians; the waterboarding at Guantanamo; the human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib, and so on - are all very welcome ideological ammunition for the IS to feed to their followers, to keep the hatred alive. Why do you think IS makes their hostages wear orange overalls before beheading them? We supplied them with the visual code to use for their propaganda. Time to stop doing this.

Meanwhile, the most effective fighters against IS don't seem to be fighter planes dropping bombs, but rather, Kurdish milita. Not least, their women fighters. See for example:

The angels of death: ISIS savages fear Kurd women fighters more than any other foe

and here's a more detailed piece about the actual methods Kurdish guerilla fighters use against the IS:

Here's how Kurdish guerrilla forces are using dirty tricks against ISIS

They've scored several key victories against IS already.

posted November 17, 2015 03:18 PM            

Because I'm so used to my thoughts being my own. I don't follow the news or watch TV, I investigate certain topics as they come up and interest me.

When someone says, "THEY want you to think THIS," my knee-jerk interpretation of that is, "But WE want you to think the OPPOSITE"...and I just can't bring myself to play into dichotomous thinking. I bristle like someone is trying to manipulate me. ETA: Or worse, frame me.

Let's hope the Syrians will not be divided or infighting as they were in Syria.

posted November 17, 2015 04:22 PM            

But I think that title is very problematic, especially as that line of thinking is apparently pandemic, or a meme: it creates a template of "rhetoric" that people use commonly and without much thought: "But that's what ISIS wants you to think!"

My argument is, how dare anyone draw any comparison whatsoever between a normal everyday person's thoughts and ISIS's strategy?

Yet it's commonplace, to suggest we are just the pawns of ISIS? Very disturbing, mainly because it assumes they have so much of a voice, so much power to reach the masses.

But they don't. So what's up with that?

ISIS may hate having the refugees embraced by Germany; some Germans may have qualms about the refugees, too, not out of racism, but because of all attending circumstances.

posted November 17, 2015 05:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
I get confused when I read anything that starts with "So-and-so wants you to think..."

Because I'm so used to my thoughts being my own. I don't follow the news or watch TV, I investigate certain topics as they come up and interest me.

When someone says, "THEY want you to think THIS," my knee-jerk interpretation of that is, "But WE want you to think the OPPOSITE"...and I just can't bring myself to play into dichotomous thinking. I bristle like someone is trying to manipulate me. ETA: Or worse, frame me.

Let's hope the Syrians will not be divided or infighting as they were in Syria.

---

But I can proudly say I'm never afflicted by thoughts as: who's the person telling me this? what if such person wants to manipulate me, what if not... and so on; because such thoughts never offer a solution, they would only aggravate the problem.

posted November 17, 2015 05:02 PM            

quote:

---

To sum up, the basic idea presented in that article that IS hates the "welcome culture" and wants to destroy it by using propaganda seems rather plausible.

---

Thanks for explaining. As I said, I don't follow the news the way most people do. So it shocks me to hear these things. And then I wonder how ISIS can even use social media without being tracked and policed.

To say, "You're just thinking that because ISIS wants you to" might be true then? And whether it's true or not, this is probably another kind of statement that ISIS enjoys seeing? They must delight in creating rifts amongst people, infiltrating and commanding the dialogue. Like they are all over the cyber-turf? Strange, I would have thought Twitter and other social media could stop them, rather than offering an apparently unlimited platform.

posted November 17, 2015 05:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by GemBird82:
oh, but that's a bit simplistic reasoning ms Faith

---

I fleshed out my reasoning some.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GemBird82:
(I personally) think you are prone to cause more division than union, to make more frenemies than friends.

---

? I guess...I don't care? I'm being sincere as I explore these topics, I want a full-blown HONEST dialogue from all angles, if possible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GemBird82:
It would be... kind of difficult to notice the little good/truth in a hyper-dense article for someone(anyone) that doesn't know how to listen and/or is not ready to just read without any prejudices, false assumptions and pre-conceptions.

---

posted November 17, 2015 05:21 PM            

The Economist on Oct 10th this year had something on the "virtual caliphate", see here, they summed up the results of a larger study:

quote:

---

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/10/tracking-islamic-states-media-ou tput

Tracking Islamic State's media output: The IS media machine

ISLAMIC STATE is well-versed in self-promotion. Official channels are mostly blocked, so the group uses search terms and hashtags to enable viewers to find and share its publicity materials online using social media. Slickly made and shocking, a regular stream of films depicting the beheading, shooting (and worse) of non-believers, gays, enemy soldiers and other victims have been widely reported by Western media. But these violent messages are only a tiny part of IS’s total media output according to a recent analysis by the Quilliam Foundation, a British anti-extremist think-tank. Between July 17th and August 15th this year it identified over 1,100 discrete messages—radio broadcasts, videos, tweets and articles created by IS using six core media teams and 38 regional units—and sifted them by theme.

The results are surprising. More than half of the messages are true propaganda, portraying a utopian civil society in which children are taken for idyllic days out by fighters and clean hospitals are run by Australian doctors as part of the “IS Health Service” (mirroring the colours and font of Britain’s National Health Service). Almost 40% trumpet its claimed military achievements, mainly offensive gains rather than defensive retrenchments. Material depicting Sunni Muslims as a persecuted minority account for 7%. Just 2% of the group’s output focuses on its appalling brutality. It is by combatting this clever emphasis by IS on a regular, orderly life that foreign governments can hope to reduce the appeal to their citizens who join the self-styled “caliphate”.

---

The Link to the Quilliam study in that Economist article is broken, but the study can be found here:

http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/FIN AL-documenting-the-virtual-caliphate.pdf

posted November 17, 2015 05:22 PM            

~ Oh, and just before going to have a walk... and also because the other thread got closed

Yes, I think there might be some involvement of French "autorithies" behind the attack, but that's a common factor in... well, attacks? generally speaking I mean?

I'm a bit surprised that it's mentioned as if it were fresh news, when it has been known (or at least theorized) that behind many political/economic atrocities there is a shady-shady controlling, oppresive and greedy nature. But... (there is always a but) since such topic belongs more to the Spider-line and has been mentioned plenty of times already, I think It's just time for me to go out for a while... !

~ Have a beautiful afternoon !
----

posted November 17, 2015 06:02 PM            

It was taking forever for your link to download so I haven't looked into it more thoroughly yet, but it's interesting.

I guess in my naivete, I thought that at least in the US, Patriot Act surveillance/policing mechanisms were in place to stamp out exactly what's going on with social media and ISIS? And I thought that would have to be a serious deterrent against "playing that game."

Things like this:

Seventeen-year-old sentenced to 11 years in prison for pro-ISIS Twitter account

Arrests of Americans aiding ISIS soar, fueled by Twitter and social media, feds say

But these people are prepared to die for their cause...so what's a little prison time?

Still it intrigues me that social media cannot be controlled. Nor the regular media that launches those ideas even further.

posted November 17, 2015 06:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:

As for wondering who ISIS is, honestly I have trouble trusting most sources. It's so easy for the higher-ups to step in and "stage" things...with agent provocateurs and the like.

---

Well...the best idea is always to rely on the eyewitnesses rather than some news media reports or even worse, anonymous hearsay on the internet. In Europe, thanks to the refugee crisis, we currently have hundreds of thousands of them available - because the Syrian refugees are people who saw with their own eyes what IS is all about, and one can easily assume that the overwhelming majority does not condone their methods or their ideology or they would not be braving the med sea to run from them. One can ask them and compare the stories. Some will be fake, some exaggerated, but the more common stories are told by a multitude of people, and backed up with credible evidence, the easier to determine what is true and what not.

Nicolas Hénin, the guy whose account of his hostage experience I linked, is another observer with an interesting perspective because he's a Westerner.

The Kurdish fighters are another source with yet a different perspective which is also very interesting.

posted November 17, 2015 08:21 PM            

And Syria was in the US neocons' crosshairs before we ever invaded Iraq. (In first three minutes, here is US General Wesley Clark talking about PNAC's coup of the White House and its laundry list of countries to invade and attack.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

I am long past my conspiracy theory days, and have nothing to convince anyone of...never really met anyone who even cared about the Project for the New American Century, except on sites where the people were already versed in it...but the basic suspicions remain.

posted November 17, 2015 08:29 PM            

Though they could have tried to be more factually correct at the end, about PNAC's main target countries. It was well-publicized.

posted November 18, 2015 04:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vajra:
Well...the best idea is always to rely on the eyewitnesses rather than some news media reports or even worse, anonymous hearsay on the internet. In Europe, thanks to the refugee crisis, we currently have hundreds of thousands of them available - because the Syrian refugees are people who saw with their own eyes what IS is all about, and one can easily assume that the overwhelming majority does not condone their methods or their ideology or they would not be braving the med sea to run from them. One can ask them and compare the stories. Some will be fake, some exaggerated, but the more common stories are told by a multitude of people, and backed up with credible evidence, the easier to determine what is true and what not.

Nicolas Hénin, the guy whose account of his hostage experience I linked, is another observer with an interesting perspective because he's a Westerner.

The Kurdish fighters are another source with yet a different perspective which is also very interesting.

Bottom line is, one must always take multiple sources, look at who says what to gain what, and try to compare and evaluate everything meticulously, to form an idea of what might be a trustworthy stock of data and what might be propaganda or misinformation or exaggeration or fear-mongering or attention-seeking....and so on. It's every historian's daily bread and one must use the same method with current events, IMO.

---