Islamist militants 'kill US reporter James Foley on video'

[JetsetBkk]

Has anyone seen the video? Its on the internet and it's not hard to find.

I watched the beginning of the video. Obviously Jim was told to denounce American aggression in the Middle East. It was very hard to watch. I turned my head when they started to cut him at the neck. The knife did not look sharp.

Jin didn't cry at all. He died with dignity. I give him a lot if credit. I would have been in tears.

Scotland Yard says it could be a criminal offence to watch it in the UK

<snip>

How about listening to the speech Foley gave before he was allegedly killed?

This is what he said:

"I call on my friends, family and loved ones to rise up against my real killers - the US government. For what will happen to me is only the result of their complacency and criminality.

My message to my beloved parents: save me some dignity and don't accept any meagre compensation for my death from the same people who effectively hit the last nail in my coffin with their recent aerial campaign in Iraq.

I call on my brother John who is a member of the US air force. Think about what you are doing. Think about the lives you destroy including those of your own family. I call on you John. Think about who made the decision to bomb Iraq recently and kill those people whoever they may have been. Think John, who did they really kill? Did they think about me or our family when they made that decision?

I died that day, John. When your colleagues dropped that bomb on those people they signed my death certificate.

I wish I had more time. I wish I could have the hope of freedom and seeing my family once again. But that ship has sailed.

I guess all in all I wish I wasn't American."

[Steely Dan]

Oh dear! According to this James Foley was originally captured by the 'Free Syrian Army' (The ones we armed) who then gave him to ISIS as a demonstration of allegiance.

http://www.ibtimes.com/james-foley-allegedly-used-token-allegiance-group-joined-isis-1664272#.U_UqRzOxIJZ.twitter

In other words finding moderate Muslims to arm is just asking for blowback.

Anyone who has ever lived and worked in this region knows that the very concept of a free syrian army was dreamed up by marketing types because the phrase rings like freedom fighters, worthy allies, etc. It enables the appearance of an oppressed people, finally having enough, battling bad minority forces- Alawites= Asad.

The fact is, secularists could never have a legitimate standing amongst their peers and the religious imans who's favor is always courted for mandate- fatwa. Secularists are a western concept. Islam has no such provisions. It is basically like describing color to a blind person. It does not compute and for those enlightened few who grasp such concepts, they would hardly be steeped in warfare, nor would their enlightened ideas spread in Sharia like the west purported regarding the free syrian army.

No, its apparent that Seymour Hirsch's 2007 investigate piece on what the west was doing in Syria and the levant, in creating this monster was spot on. Everything he said would come to pass has. Life has coincidences, this is not that. Without question IS is a creation of the US et al. Indeed, even the first great pics of the advancing IS army, depicted their endless caravan of new Toyota trucks revealed the hand of the west. These trucks were all purchased by the US State Department for the free syrian army. This is an entire fabrication of the west. It is based on some propositions: A fractured levant denies contiguous hegemony to Iran. A fractured Iraq restores sustainable traditional borders of ethnic/religious peoples, finally permits a military capability in the Kurds, and attrits future threats by their killing each other. (Moreover, as Israel and the west are always secondary targets in jihad, this enables asymmetrical threats against Israel to distill into singular entities).

You will never find moderate muslims picking up arms to wage war against IS and the like because the mind that would enable the road to understanding the freedom and equality and fraternity of man is the same road that tends to sway one from warfare, and suffering. (This is the reason the west can hardly contain they're confusion and what to do; nor can the western mind fully grasp the threat). There are moderate muslims but they are not a majority. There are moderate muslims but they are not arrayed on the battlefields today. There are moderate muslims but you may only see their possible actions in state players, if they act. They are not acting instead they are sponsoring IS et al to consolidate jihadis and recast the geography as a proxy. (BTW the only real regional secular "muslim" army, Turkey, is hardly any longer).

Just to pick up on a couple of points. ISIS didn't only pick up equipment from the 'Free Syrian Army', they also picked up some fairly advanced weaponry from the Iraqi army, which folded like a deck of cards when called on to defend a Western abstract concept called democracy. I fear they may even have surface to air missiles capable of bringing don airliners as happened in the Ukraine. I'm often left open mouthed at the stupidity of our leaders, but when you look at the background of Obamas appointees it is easy to see where the current strategy comes from. One thing is for sure, it is difficult to imagine any of the potential outcomes from the current strategy being advantageous to the US or the West in general.

[Ulysses G.]

I guess all in all I wish I wasn't American.

Probably the only true thing is a speech that he was forced to make. When you are about to get your head cut off by savages for being American, you would wish that you were anything else.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[arjunadawn]

Just to pick up on a couple of points. ISIS didn't only pick up equipment from the 'Free Syrian Army', they also picked up some fairly advanced weaponry from the Iraqi army, which folded like a deck of cards when called on to defend a Western abstract concept called democracy. I fear they may even have surface to air missiles capable of bringing don airliners as happened in the Ukraine. I'm often left open mouthed at the stupidity of our leaders, but when you look at the background of Obamas appointees it is easy to see where the current strategy comes from. One thing is for sure, it is difficult to imagine any of the potential outcomes from the current strategy being advantageous to the US or the West in general.

Yes, you are correct, of course. There is only so much anecdotal and direct suggestion of malfeasance before an inquiring mind must demand "For who's benefit?" As an amateur student of war and history it is incredulous to think events are unfolding irrespective of the West's policies.

In the short term, I cannot imagine anything advantageous to the west; and that, perhaps, is the short term point! Long term goals, if containment and pro western, are likely to have vastly unintended consequences. You cannot control men who's authority is from god. However, if the long term goals are far more mischievous than even western implementers realize, then this entire debacle makes perfect sense.

I am not one who believes Obama is a boogeyman. I do believe, however, he is pretty darn close. He represents a leftist marriage with an Islamic supremacy that the left believes, in the short term, is aiming for the same goals- reduction of western influence, reduction of Judeochristian mechanisms in civil and state discourse, reduction of traditional elements of society that have empowered the conservative and core opposing constituency, and ethical relativity through forced embracing of the multicultural stalking horse. Islam is not the product of this pie in the sky progressive aim, but it is the beneficiary. The left (yes, often moderates too) greatly miscalculate the guiding principles of Islam. They do not care what your shared aims are; it is irrelevant. This is my opinion.

Therefore, actions in remote areas of the world where IS and other Jihadi elements are ascendent simply cannot be considered in a vacuum. The inroads that have been made by the conduct of jihad lawfare and sophisticated media manipulation have virtually crippled the internal alarm systems of western capitals. In the highest levels of government muslim brotherhood operatives advise the president of the united states. This is prima faciae evidence of treason, IMO. A cursory review of MB background, associations, etc., clearly suggests a repugnant entity, anathema to the US.

When all the speculation is set aside, the emotions calmed, and an overall consideration given to this question: "Who benefits?" it becomes apparent that actions on the ground in the jihadi world are very deliberate. Actions on the ground have been significantly managed, not reacted to by the west. There has been an undeniable resurgence in Islamic fundamentalism unlike previously and awesome levels of funding to enable it; cui bono? From Tunisia, to (failed) Cairo, to Gaza, Turkey, etc., Islamic jihad has had a renaissance and reprieve under Obama & Company. It is true in science as it is in living that the most likely, least complicated, answer is correct. There is little in what I assert that could remotely be construed as conspiracy. It is all more or less in the public record.

[JetsetBkk]

I guess all in all I wish I wasn't American.

Probably the only true thing is a speech that he was forced to make. When you are about to get your head cut off by savages for being American, you would wish that you were anything else.

I guess you meant: "in a speech".

However, if you know you're going to die anyway, how can you be forced to make a false speech?

He certainly spoke convincingly and without much hint of fear.

I think the whole anti-American speech was true. I can only assume that POTUS Obama hadn't read the transcript or seen the video before he made his speech about Foley's death.

[Ulysses G.]

However, if you know you're going to die anyway, how can you be forced to make a false speech?

Easily. Torture or threat of torture. Most people would say anything to avoid it. There is also the possibility that he was told that if he cooperated he would be spared in the end.

[Ulysses G.]

I am not one who believes Obama is a boogeyman. I do believe, however, he is pretty darn close.

I'm with you. I'm sure that he appreciates our vote of confidence.

[arjunadawn]

However, if you know you're going to die anyway, how can you be forced to make a false speech?

Easily. Torture or threat of torture. Most people would say anything to avoid it. There is also the possibility that he was told that if he cooperated he would be spared in the end.

I agree.

I had some thoughts on this as well. Irrespective of what he said, it should not count against him. He has very basic personal antiterrorism instruction as a journalist, likely, but it stops there. Codes of Conduct about not making declarations extend to military people, but only here to a point. The fact is, any one can be made to break. Any man can be broken, reduced, and when all that remains is a shimmer of hope, it is something that a man will desperately try to hold on to. This is an obvious reference to not only the heinous act of murdering a man but the duplicity in likely suggesting his declaration would aid him. So what he denounces the west. It makes no difference whether he meant it or not. Under duress, all men may waiver. I too think that using my knowledge (sarcasm) and experience were I in his position I would clearly realize they were going to kill me anyway, therefore I will not hand them a gift. The problem is, breaking down doesnt always go the way we think it will. I have had real SERE (Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape) training and even there, people break and submit. I think no man should look down on a man who's life was ending and he tried desperately to live.

[JetsetBkk]

However, if you know you're going to die anyway, how can you be forced to make a false speech?

Easily. Torture or threat of torture. Most people would say anything to avoid it. There is also the possibility that he was told that if he cooperated he would be spared in the end.

Yes, in my original post I tried to include the "Gladiator" quote: "Give me a clean death, a soldier's death", but it didn't fit properly.

So I do understand that they may have persuaded him to say what he did on the promise of a painless death.

But I still have doubt's about the video and sequence of events. And, as I haven't been able to find the unedited version, my doubts remain.

[goatfarmer]

However, if you know you're going to die anyway, how can you be forced to make a false speech?

Easily. Torture or threat of torture. Most people would say anything to avoid it. There is also the possibility that he was told that if he cooperated he would be spared in the end.

Yes, in my original post I tried to include the "Gladiator" quote: "Give me a clean death, a soldier's death", but it didn't fit properly.

So I do understand that they may have persuaded him to say what he did on the promise of a painless death.

But I still have doubt's about the video and sequence of events. And, as I haven't been able to find the unedited version, my doubts remain.

What's to doubt?

[hawker9000]

Any of these militants that are captured should be handed over to the Kurds and let them deal with them the same way that they have dealing with the defenceless people they have dealing with.

Stoning, amputations, beheading, up to them I dont really care how they are dealt with, just deal with them.

At last the US has acknowledged the threat we face and are now contemplating how to deal with it, quick as you can please, its getting stronger all the time.

Why, yes. Obama is finally doing something about it. I guess he's gonna' have Holder send what amounts to a prosecutor (or two) to Irag to find out who did it...

It's as if he's trying to "play out" a two-year clock on the whole terrorist "thing". Oh, excuse me. It's not a "terrorist" thing. It's a "criminal" thing.

[Johpa]

Have you ever questioned why the Western mainstream media rarely reports condemnation of Islamic extremism by Muslim leaders?

I have noticed the lack of condemnation. On the other hand, I have yet to see any mention of a "fatwa" being issued against ISIL by either Saudi Sunnis or even Iranian Shias.

There have been a few posts regarding Seymour Hirsch's rather prophetic 2007 piece of investigative journalism regarding the clandestine support of the Sunni radicals in the Levant that gave rise to ISIL. Here is a link to an interview with Hirsch (http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/28/investigative_reporter_seymour_hersh_us_indirectly) that give some credence to some of the tinfoil hat wearers on some related threads. (Apologies for not being able to embed the link as there are some conflicts happening with my machine and googleapis which is used by TV)

[simple1]

Have you ever questioned why the Western mainstream media rarely reports condemnation of Islamic extremism by Muslim leaders?

I have noticed the lack of condemnation. On the other hand, I have yet to see any mention of a "fatwa" being issued against ISIL by either Saudi Sunnis or even Iranian Shias.

There have been a few posts regarding Seymour Hirsch's rather prophetic 2007 piece of investigative journalism regarding the clandestine support of the Sunni radicals in the Levant that gave rise to ISIL. Here is a link to an interview with Hirsch (http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/28/investigative_reporter_seymour_hersh_us_indirectly) that give some credence to some of the tinfoil hat wearers on some related threads. (Apologies for not being able to embed the link as there are some conflicts happening with my machine and googleapis which is used by TV)

A fair amount of under reporting and requires effort with Google to locate. Even when links have been posted, minimised by some. However...

Shiite leader Ayatollah Ali Sistani has issues a fatwa, but it’s a double edged sword as may lead to increased sectarian killings in Iraq

As previously mentioned, Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz Al al-Sheikh, the highest religious authority in the country spoken out against IS

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.611245

Arab league accuses ISIS of “crimes against humanity

http://medafricatimes.com/3105-mena-arab-league-accuses-isis-of-crimes-against-humanity.html

Hopefully relevant nations will get there act together and take IS head on in Syria and Iraq

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/22/islamic-state-pentagon-dempsey-hagel/14440861/

[Steely Dan]

Have you ever questioned why the Western mainstream media rarely reports condemnation of Islamic extremism by Muslim leaders?

I have noticed the lack of condemnation. On the other hand, I have yet to see any mention of a "fatwa" being issued against ISIL by either Saudi Sunnis or even Iranian Shias.

There have been a few posts regarding Seymour Hirsch's rather prophetic 2007 piece of investigative journalism regarding the clandestine support of the Sunni radicals in the Levant that gave rise to ISIL. Here is a link to an interview with Hirsch (http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/28/investigative_reporter_seymour_hersh_us_indirectly) that give some credence to some of the tinfoil hat wearers on some related threads. (Apologies for not being able to embed the link as there are some conflicts happening with my machine and googleapis which is used by TV)

A fair amount of under reporting and requires effort with Google to locate. Even when links have been posted, minimised by some. However...

Shiite leader Ayatollah Ali Sistani has issues a fatwa, but it’s a double edged sword as may lead to increased sectarian killings in Iraq

As previously mentioned, Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz Al al-Sheikh, the highest religious authority in the country spoken out against IS

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.611245

Arab league accuses ISIS of “crimes against humanity

http://medafricatimes.com/3105-mena-arab-league-accuses-isis-of-crimes-against-humanity.html

Hopefully relevant nations will get there act together and take IS head on in Syria and Iraq

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/22/islamic-state-pentagon-dempsey-hagel/14440861/

And yet Saudi Arabia has a long history of spreading its own extreme form of Islam throughout the world. I suspect The Saudis are actually suffering some blowback from the extremism they have taught. Now the Saudi rulers feel threatened by a Caliphate, which by it's very nature will have designs on their kingdom. Incidentally if the top Islamic clerics wanted to stop ISIS using texts from the Koran to justify their actions they could issue a fatwa abrogating those texts explicitly. To just claim ISIS is misusing them is to keep them in the locker for potential future use.

[simple1]

Have you ever questioned why the Western mainstream media rarely reports condemnation of Islamic extremism by Muslim leaders?

I have noticed the lack of condemnation. On the other hand, I have yet to see any mention of a "fatwa" being issued against ISIL by either Saudi Sunnis or even Iranian Shias.

There have been a few posts regarding Seymour Hirsch's rather prophetic 2007 piece of investigative journalism regarding the clandestine support of the Sunni radicals in the Levant that gave rise to ISIL. Here is a link to an interview with Hirsch (http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/28/investigative_reporter_seymour_hersh_us_indirectly) that give some credence to some of the tinfoil hat wearers on some related threads. (Apologies for not being able to embed the link as there are some conflicts happening with my machine and googleapis which is used by TV)

A fair amount of under reporting and requires effort with Google to locate. Even when links have been posted, minimised by some. However...

Shiite leader Ayatollah Ali Sistani has issues a fatwa, but it’s a double edged sword as may lead to increased sectarian killings in Iraq

As previously mentioned, Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz Al al-Sheikh, the highest religious authority in the country spoken out against IS

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.611245

Arab league accuses ISIS of “crimes against humanity

http://medafricatimes.com/3105-mena-arab-league-accuses-isis-of-crimes-against-humanity.html

Hopefully relevant nations will get there act together and take IS head on in Syria and Iraq

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/22/islamic-state-pentagon-dempsey-hagel/14440861/

And yet Saudi Arabia has a long history of spreading its own extreme form of Islam throughout the world. I suspect The Saudis are actually suffering some blowback from the extremism they have taught. Now the Saudi rulers feel threatened by a Caliphate, which by it's very nature will have designs on their kingdom. Incidentally if the top Islamic clerics wanted to stop ISIS using texts from the Koran to justify their actions they could issue a fatwa abrogating those texts explicitly. To just claim ISIS is misusing them is to keep them in the locker for potential future use.

Agree with your comments on blowback & threat to the Saudi dictatorship

[simple1]

Analysis of US / Iranian relationship in regard to IS

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/iraq-united-states-and-iran-align-against-islamic-state

[ABCer]

A good man died. Regrets. People usually die. Sometimes violently.

Regrets. Condolences.

Now what's the fuss about?

Is it because you didn't know that militants and terrorists kill? - You all know that. Even those who prefer to call them 'freedom fighters'.

Maybe it is because he was innocent? - Mostly innocents are killed by terrorists, you all know that too.

Surely the fuss is not because he was an American? - Why should Americans be exempt?

Aha! It is because it was done on video! - God forbid some under 18 has seen it! If he speaks with the same accent he might even consider... no, I cannot say it...

Now, what's the fuss about?

BTW, personally I think

1) He died as a man (according to video).

2) Anything and everything he said on video is, was and always will be - under duress - thus not valid.

3) Authors of this horrible murder and producers of the video are very stupid people. They made the World their enemies, not just piss-off Obama.

Edited August 23, 2014 by ABCer

[goatfarmer]

A good man died. Regrets. People usually die. Sometimes violently.

Regrets. Condolences.

Now what's the fuss about?

Is it because you didn't know that militants and terrorists kill? - You all know that.

Maybe it is because he was innocent? - Mostly innocents are killed by terrorists, you all know that too.

Surely the fuss is not because he was an American? - Why should Americans be exempt?

Aha! It is because it was done on video! - God forbid some under 18 has seen it! If he speaks with the same accent he might even consider... no, I cannot say it...

Now, what's the fuss about?

It's because he is American (someone like 'us') and the event was videoed and posted in a boastful, provocative manner.

[goatfarmer]

The video documentary of the IS, made by Medlan Dairieh, shows a bunch of happy people who think they're the luckiest people on earth, on one hand, and, on the other, a population cowed into a state of terrified obedience.

https://news.vice.com/video/the-islamic-state-part-1

One wonders how long these golden days will last. The murder of Foley was a dubious enterprise. Waleed Aly speculates that the motives for the murder and video posting were first, a recruitment drive to inspire people around the world to join the Caliphate, but also, to provoke an American reaction in order to provide a 'magnet for radicalisation'.

http://m.smh.com.au/comment/james-foley-beheading-baits-america-to-intervene-20140821-106jbo.html

But this presupposes that there would be anything left of IS if the US, re-armed Kurds, Iranians, Syrians and/or other interested parties mounted a concerted effort to unhinge them. Provoking such a response would appear to be shooting oneself in the foot. Do they really need to take such a risk in order to recruit and radicalize? (Perhaps their motive is self-destruction like so many death-wish inspired maniacs in history.)

Might it be that the murder and video of Foley was a rogue act by the parties concerned? No senior IS spokesperson has spoken about it. We only have a statement from John, the East Londoner. Might it be that IS are not as unified under Abu Bakr as the group would have us believe?

Edited August 23, 2014 by goatfarmer

[Johpa]

I have noticed the lack of condemnation. On the other hand, I have yet to see any mention of a "fatwa" being issued against ISIL by either Saudi Sunnis or even Iranian Shias.

There have been a few posts regarding Seymour Hirsch's rather prophetic 2007 piece of investigative journalism regarding the clandestine support of the Sunni radicals in the Levant that gave rise to ISIL. Here is a link to an interview with Hirsch (http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/28/investigative_reporter_seymour_hersh_us_indirectly) that give some credence to some of the tinfoil hat wearers on some related threads. (Apologies for not being able to embed the link as there are some conflicts happening with my machine and googleapis which is used by TV)

A fair amount of under reporting and requires effort with Google to locate. Even when links have been posted, minimised by some. However...

Shiite leader Ayatollah Ali Sistani has issues a fatwa, but it’s a double edged sword as may lead to increased sectarian killings in Iraq

As previously mentioned, Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz Al al-Sheikh, the highest religious authority in the country spoken out against IS

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.611245

Ayatollah Ali Sistani issued a fatwa a few months ago for his followers in Iraq to defend themselves and fight against the Sunni led ISIS, not a fatwa against the ISIS or its members. And Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti has spoken out against ISIS but, again I can't find a fatwa against ISIS. Compare this to the fatwas against Salman Rushdie or anonymous cartoonists.

Go back to the interview with Hersh which was made in 2007. What was really chilling was his taking note that Prince Bandar, who alledgely led the financial shenanigans to fund and create ISIS, with the backing of Cheney and the Neo-Con group, claimed to be a Wahabi and that he would be able to keep the Sunni rebeles in Syria in check.

[F430murci]

I guess all in all I wish I wasn't American.

Probably the only true thing is a speech that he was forced to make. When you are about to get your head cut off by savages for being American, you would wish that you were anything else.

I guess you meant: "in a speech".

However, if you know you're going to die anyway, how can you be forced to make a false speech?

He certainly spoke convincingly and without much hint of fear.

I think the whole anti-American speech was true. I can only assume that POTUS Obama hadn't read the transcript or seen the video before he made his speech about Foley's death.

??? Really? I am shocked that someone would actually believe such a notion.

They rehearse this crap and force statements all the time as part of torture. Their way of having fun I suppose. Then, they can certainly take the best version of the confession and add the the beheading portion afterwards. There was certainly a camera angle change between confession and alleged beheading part. Could have been done days apart.

I doubt the poor guy knew for sure he was about to be decapitated that crappy knife. He perhaps would have said just about anything in self preservation. Any civilian would.

If your hands were tied behind your back, people with weapons were around you and you were told to read a statement, chances are you would read and say whatever they told you to say on the off chance it may save or pro long your life.

Most if the Mexican cartel beheading videos also have confessions. Those poor souls definitely know what is coming yet most will say just about anything in the hopes that it might alter the outcome.

. . . Really blown away someone has so little insight or common sense to think through the scenario.

[kurnell]

However, if you know you're going to die anyway, how can you be forced to make a false speech?

Easily. Torture or threat of torture. Most people would say anything to avoid it. There is also the possibility that he was told that if he cooperated he would be spared in the end.

Yes, in my original post I tried to include the "Gladiator" quote: "Give me a clean death, a soldier's death", but it didn't fit properly.

So I do understand that they may have persuaded him to say what he did on the promise of a painless death.

But I still have doubt's about the video and sequence of events. And, as I haven't been able to find the unedited version, my doubts remain.

What's to doubt?

Since there is no actual footage of the beheading then there is plenty of doubt.

[arjunadawn]

Have you ever questioned why the Western mainstream media rarely reports condemnation of Islamic extremism by Muslim leaders?

I have noticed the lack of condemnation. On the other hand, I have yet to see any mention of a "fatwa" being issued against ISIL by either Saudi Sunnis or even Iranian Shias.

There have been a few posts regarding Seymour Hirsch's rather prophetic 2007 piece of investigative journalism regarding the clandestine support of the Sunni radicals in the Levant that gave rise to ISIL. Here is a link to an interview with Hirsch (http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/28/investigative_reporter_seymour_hersh_us_indirectly) that give some credence to some of the tinfoil hat wearers on some related threads. (Apologies for not being able to embed the link as there are some conflicts happening with my machine and googleapis which is used by TV)

I am among the aluminum foil hat crowd. With or without Hersch's piece the various fragments of this apparent policy are easily sourced. If someone read "Which Path to Persia," the Seymour H piece, and just various daily news feeds, they could reach similar conclusions. No, it is not a conspiracy. Various elements of strategic policy, for differing countries, frequently make less than public their means to the end. In this case, there has already been and continues to be serious blow-back and unintended consequences. I am also among those who believe the Libya debacle is related to arms. Indeed, the only ones who seem not to note this are the American public, en masse. It is hardly difficult to see the hand of other regional sunni players in this morass. When it is considered that the US has lost nearly all remaining legitimacy in this region it then comes as no surprise that regional players will seek their own means of self preservation.

There are fatwas (that I am aware of) against IS because it would be outside the scope of koranic law to censure them; according to scripture, they do have arguable authority for these actions. It is instructive that Putin warned the west of this but of course, no one listened. Perhaps its the foil hat interference of alpha centurai but I also believe a conditional, sympathetic alliance exists in between Islam and western media. No, its not evil or conniving. It is based on the preliminary goals of Islamic jihadists indict those institutions and powers in the west (and Israel) that media folks generally are sympathetic to.

[JetsetBkk]

<snip>

. . . Really blown away someone has so little insight or common sense to think through the scenario.

Ditto.

You really need to watch the video.

[hawker9000]

A good man died. Regrets. People usually die. Sometimes violently.

Regrets. Condolences.

Now what's the fuss about?

Is it because you didn't know that militants and terrorists kill? - You all know that. Even those who prefer to call them 'freedom fighters'.

Maybe it is because he was innocent? - Mostly innocents are killed by terrorists, you all know that too.

Surely the fuss is not because he was an American? - Why should Americans be exempt?

Aha! It is because it was done on video! - God forbid some under 18 has seen it! If he speaks with the same accent he might even consider... no, I cannot say it...

Now, what's the fuss about?

BTW, personally I think

1) He died as a man (according to video).

2) Anything and everything he said on video is, was and always will be - under duress - thus not valid.

3) Authors of this horrible murder and producers of the video are very stupid people. They made the World their enemies, not just piss-off Obama.

"not just piss-off Obama."

'Wonder if it put him off his golf game any...

[simple1]

I have noticed the lack of condemnation. On the other hand, I have yet to see any mention of a "fatwa" being issued against ISIL by either Saudi Sunnis or even Iranian Shias.

There have been a few posts regarding Seymour Hirsch's rather prophetic 2007 piece of investigative journalism regarding the clandestine support of the Sunni radicals in the Levant that gave rise to ISIL. Here is a link to an interview with Hirsch (http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/28/investigative_reporter_seymour_hersh_us_indirectly) that give some credence to some of the tinfoil hat wearers on some related threads. (Apologies for not being able to embed the link as there are some conflicts happening with my machine and googleapis which is used by TV)

A fair amount of under reporting and requires effort with Google to locate. Even when links have been posted, minimised by some. However...

Shiite leader Ayatollah Ali Sistani has issues a fatwa, but it’s a double edged sword as may lead to increased sectarian killings in Iraq

As previously mentioned, Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz Al al-Sheikh, the highest religious authority in the country spoken out against IS

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.611245

Ayatollah Ali Sistani issued a fatwa a few months ago for his followers in Iraq to defend themselves and fight against the Sunni led ISIS, not a fatwa against the ISIS or its members. And Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti has spoken out against ISIS but, again I can't find a fatwa against ISIS. Compare this to the fatwas against Salman Rushdie or anonymous cartoonists.

Go back to the interview with Hersh which was made in 2007. What was really chilling was his taking note that Prince Bandar, who alledgely led the financial shenanigans to fund and create ISIS, with the backing of Cheney and the Neo-Con group, claimed to be a Wahabi and that he would be able to keep the Sunni rebeles in Syria in check.

Below is a fatwa issued in June 2013 by the Syrian Islamic Council against ISIS that as far as I know has only been reported in the Western media a few hours ago; I assume there are others that are currently unreported.

http://freehalab.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/fatwa-against-isis-by-the-syrian-islamic-council/

The very recent attack on a Sunni mosque in Iraq by Shiites that resulted in 60+ deaths has led to the Sunni representatives walking out from negotiations for an inclusive government. A big setback for the idea that the Sunni tribes will again withdraw support for the extremists as was the case for the Sunni Awakening.

[craigt3365]

A post violating forum rules has been removed from view.

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

[SjaakNL2013]

It's sad for Mr. Foley and his family but.....

Mr. Foley did go to an area that is in war and toke the risk of getting killed. The IS and the US have both their ways to execute people who break their law. It's not up to a country to condem the justice system in an other country. Jurustic it seems to get an intresting case now all believe, US and UK, that a citizen from UK killed a US citizen under IS laws.

Well like so many terrorist maybe this UK citizen will be the next president of the IS. Many did go for him like Nelson Mandela and Jasser Arafat to name a few.

[arjunadawn]

I have noticed the lack of condemnation. On the other hand, I have yet to see any mention of a "fatwa" being issued against ISIL by either Saudi Sunnis or even Iranian Shias.

There have been a few posts regarding Seymour Hirsch's rather prophetic 2007 piece of investigative journalism regarding the clandestine support of the Sunni radicals in the Levant that gave rise to ISIL. Here is a link to an interview with Hirsch (http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/28/investigative_reporter_seymour_hersh_us_indirectly) that give some credence to some of the tinfoil hat wearers on some related threads. (Apologies for not being able to embed the link as there are some conflicts happening with my machine and googleapis which is used by TV)

A fair amount of under reporting and requires effort with Google to locate. Even when links have been posted, minimised by some. However...

Shiite leader Ayatollah Ali Sistani has issues a fatwa, but its a double edged sword as may lead to increased sectarian killings in Iraq

As previously mentioned, Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz Al al-Sheikh, the highest religious authority in the country spoken out against IS

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.611245

Ayatollah Ali Sistani issued a fatwa a few months ago for his followers in Iraq to defend themselves and fight against the Sunni led ISIS, not a fatwa against the ISIS or its members. And Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti has spoken out against ISIS but, again I can't find a fatwa against ISIS. Compare this to the fatwas against Salman Rushdie or anonymous cartoonists.

Go back to the interview with Hersh which was made in 2007. What was really chilling was his taking note that Prince Bandar, who alledgely led the financial shenanigans to fund and create ISIS, with the backing of Cheney and the Neo-Con group, claimed to be a Wahabi and that he would be able to keep the Sunni rebeles in Syria in check.

Below is a fatwa issued in June 2013 by the Syrian Islamic Council against ISIS that as far as I know has only been reported in the Western media a few hours ago; I assume there are others that are currently unreported.

http://freehalab.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/fatwa-against-isis-by-the-syrian-islamic-council/

The very recent attack on a Sunni mosque in Iraq by Shiites that resulted in 60+ deaths has led to the Sunni representatives walking out from negotiations for an inclusive government. A big setback for the idea that the Sunni tribes will again withdraw support for the extremists as was the case for the Sunni Awakening.

These few quotes capture the difficulties with no central Islamic authority, and in essence the vying for a caliphate to end conflicting fatwas, etc. of course the final effort would need to eliminate Shia or Alawite sympathetic fatwas as well. This is the end state for IS. So, I'm the mix are Sunni, Shia, Twelver (Shia/Syrian) fatwas, and who knows what else.

I've no doubt Sunni Muslims oppose IS. I don't know however what legitimacy the Syrian Council has- I just don't know if it's Twelver sympathetic to Alawites, or not. So, in the west it's prudent to cautiously look to emerging opposition in this AO. Any curious observer must mentally zoom out right now and then slowly zoom in re accounting for the changing political landscape and loyalties. Much has changed since the US abandoned SA, enabled Iran, faltered in Syria, lost in Iraq, declined in Afghanistan, lessened unequivocal support for Israel, prompted the Muslim Brotherhood, and backed Hamas. While Qatar and Turkey back Hamas as an extension of the MB (Thus the US shift to backing Hamas after the Egypt debacle), SA, Egypt, and other players do see connections between IS and Hamas (C. Glick). Now the US is found effectively abandoning allies and selling them out (See SA Foreign Minister statement and fallout regarding reprimanding US on this issue).

My apparent wandering above is not; I assert the regional players in this terrible Great Game are seriously stirring the pot. Iran is regional target in much of this. Supporting Whabbi and related extremists has always been a Sword of Damocles for SA and others. The post stirrers cripple Iranian influence, fracture Iraq to limit inevitable Shia expansion, and collect IS as a proxy thT can be contained later, it is reasoned IMO. The oddity of this has SA, Egypt and Israel as curious bedfellows. They do see Hamas as a MB proxy. I have yet to figure out how SA permits Qatar to find MB and IS. (Sorry, wife calling. Thoughts failing).

[arjunadawn]

It's sad for Mr. Foley and his family but.....

Mr. Foley did go to an area that is in war and toke the risk of getting killed. The IS and the US have both their ways to execute people who break their law. It's not up to a country to condem the justice system in an other country. Jurustic it seems to get an intresting case now all believe, US and UK, that a citizen from UK killed a US citizen under IS laws.

Well like so many terrorist maybe this UK citizen will be the next president of the IS. Many did go for him like Nelson Mandela and Jasser Arafat to name a few.

There is a tunnel, a long well known tunnel in Syria. I am unsure of it's near Damascus or the border; I've never been. Nearly 18 months ago friends of mine had a contract with CNN, Atlanta, to provide close protection for a news crew. Operating on the ground and a small cell in ATLANTA they monitored open source and other info to guide safety on the ground. At one point they advised an immediate pullout and in Syria they were moving the news crew through this tunnel. A female news reporter passed them as she was entering and they spoke. She was advised to leave immediately because (I think it was) al nursa moving in this area. She declined and was killed within days. The news crew was uninsured. Very successful story.

I mention this because yes, journalists do know the threat. Every bad place I have ever been there have been reporters, unarmed, right beside me or others, in impossibly dangerous situations. I mean, head ducking, ear splitting, sky whinning, concussive environments. They know whT they are getting into. I am aghast at most regarding Islamic extremism but I do not believe western policy should pivot on the death of someone who was clearly vulnerable. Policy should simply not hinge on such factors. Therefore, being policy clearly is being managed now regarding this alleged death, it causes me suspicion. It's a little bit too easy to now slide in this action as justification for further war in Syria.