ISIS claims to have beheaded captured U.S. journalist

BAGHDAD/BEIRUT (Reuters) - Islamic State insurgents released a video on Tuesday purportedly showing the beheading of U.S. journalist James Foley, who had gone missing in Syria nearly two years ago, and images of another U.S. journalist whose life they said depended on U.S. action in Iraq.

The video, titled "A Message To America," was posted on social media sites. It was not immediately possible to verify its authenticity.

Foley, who has reported in the Middle East for five years, was kidnapped on Nov. 22, 2012, by unidentified gunmen. Steven Sotloff, who appeared at the end of the video, went missing in northern Syria while he was reporting in July 2013.

A Twitter account set up by his family to help find him said early on Wednesday: "We know that many of you are looking for confirmation or answers. Please be patient until we all have more information, and keep the Foleys in your thoughts and prayers."

The White House said that U.S. intelligence agents were working to verify the authenticity of a video.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! Tell me again how calm you are? Blah, blah, blah! HA HA!

Are you going to threaten to flatten me for a third time and then chicken out again?

Ah bless, you still looking over your shoulder little zack who had to learn to fight because he was constantly bullied. .
You are boring and as seen cannot debate a topic and act like a child, so please continue acting a tit, I enjoy seeing you struggle.
Think I shall start calling you Danger Mouse

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Ah bless, you still looking over your shoulder little zack who had to learn to fight because he was constantly bullied. .
You are boring and as seen cannot debate a topic and act like a child, so please continue acting a tit, I enjoy seeing you struggle.
Think I shall start calling you Danger Mouse

You must be a fish. You like taking the bait.

Tell us again how calm you are.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You must be a fish. You like taking the bait.

Tell us again how calm you are.

Ha Ha, I love winding you up and I have reeled you in as you are still biting

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Ha Ha, I love winding you up and I have reeled you in as you are still biting

Hmm! You're using my analogy about fishing and my HA HA's.

And you think I'm wound up.

Oh dear!

Let me know when you calm down and ready to kiss and make up. See ya buddy.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Hmm! You're using my analogy about fishing and my HA HA's.

And you think I'm wound up.

Oh dear!

Let me know when you calm down and ready to kiss and make up. See ya buddy.

And he is still biting, love it, so easy to fish little shrimps

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


And he is still biting, love it, so easy to fish little shrimps

Lol! Who are you talking to?

I don't think anyone else gives a shit, mate.

Only you.

You're clearly still only interested in animosity. I was trying to be friendly.

But whatever - you're really not worth wasting any time.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I also said you can't destroy what ISIS represents. ISIS is a conglomeration of all the other terrorist groups the West thought they had destroyed.

Don't worry, the west won't let them consolidate power. But let's not pretend it's out of some moral sense of duty. It's to protect the Oil supply and the influence of the US dollar.

Lone Wolf wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I also said you can't destroy what ISIS represents. ISIS is a conglomeration of all the other terrorist groups the West thought they had destroyed.

Don't worry, the west won't let them consolidate power. But let's not pretend it's out of some moral sense of duty. It's to protect the Oil supply and the influence of the US dollar.

  

YOU DON'T half talk a load of crap, Fuzzy...

harvesmom wrote:That's a point actually, say the US/UK did capture some ISIS terrorists who turn out to be British/American citizens, what would happen to them?

eddie wrote:

harvesmom wrote:That's a point actually, say the US/UK did capture some ISIS terrorists who turn out to be British/American citizens, what would happen to them?

I was saying this today! What exactly would we do then?

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:

I was saying this today! What exactly would we do then?

Bring back the treason law with the death penalty.

Eilzel wrote:The problem then is sphinx we risk ending up with a hostile caliphate in the middle east with aims to attack Europe, including Britain, and an unmovable position of power that we didn't do anything to prevent.

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:The problem then is sphinx we risk ending up with a hostile caliphate in the middle east with aims to attack Europe, including Britain, and an unmovable position of power that we didn't do anything to prevent.

Indeed and agreed and how many other nations would topple at their hands, being as stated already Arab nations are doing very little to help fight against them. It is no good sitting backing hoping they will not win, because if they do, then they may have left it too late, they then have many troops experienced in combat and underhanded tactics which will place fear into its enemies, leaving them susceptible to being defeated. The one saving grace though is Israel, they have balls and will not shy away if under threat or attack, from smashing them

Right until later

victorisnotamused wrote:20 x 20 megatons spread evenly over the region

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:

Indeed and agreed and how many other nations would topple at their hands, being as stated already Arab nations are doing very little to help fight against them. It is no good sitting backing hoping they will not win, because if they do, then they may have left it too late, they then have many troops experienced in combat and underhanded tactics which will place fear into its enemies, leaving them susceptible to being defeated. The one saving grace though is Israel, they have balls and will not shy away if under threat or attack, from smashing them

Right until later

It is not a case of hoping they will not win it is a case of finding out exactly who the enemy really is.  As stated the Arab nations are doing very little etc etc while claiming to be allies and while we are over dicking about trying to fight in the middle east we are in an arena surrounded by possible hostiles which we simply do not know.  We need to pull out of that arena to see exactly what the Arab states do about it.  If (and to be honest it is a big if) they do then fight IS we can return to fight alongside them.  If on the other hand they become allies of IS then surely it is better to know the real size that we have to fight against from the start rather than the current mess of fighting IS with their possible allies sat on our rear.

Eilzel wrote:For once I agree, Israel would be a major ally against ISIS if they did become a regional power.

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

It is not a case of hoping they will not win it is a case of finding out exactly who the enemy really is.  As stated the Arab nations are doing very little etc etc while claiming to be allies and while we are over dicking about trying to fight in the middle east we are in an arena surrounded by possible hostiles which we simply do not know.  We need to pull out of that arena to see exactly what the Arab states do about it.  If (and to be honest it is a big if) they do then fight IS we can return to fight alongside them.  If on the other hand they become allies of IS then surely it is better to know the real size that we have to fight against from the start rather than the current mess of fighting IS with their possible allies sat on our rear.

Sphinx they know very well who the enemies are, but business takes precedence which will be to their cost and pulling totally out of the area is again a very bad move as at least we have access to garner intelligence which would much more difficult, where not directly involved with the armed forces of these regions. Again though more precedence should be placed onto the Arab nations to do something, if we left them to their own devices as seen in both Syria and Ira, look what happens, where then the ascendancy is with now ISIS

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:

Sphinx they know very well who the enemies are, but business takes precedence which will be to their cost and pulling totally out of the area is again a very bad move as at least we have access to garner intelligence which would much more difficult, where not directly involved with the armed forces of these regions. Again though more precedence should be placed onto the Arab nations to do something, if we left them to their own devices as seen in both Syria and Ira, look what happens, where then the ascendancy is with now ISIS

I am not talking about them knowing who the enemies are I am talking about us knowing who they are - which at the moment we do not.
Seems very clear to me who they are. If you are suggesting as was once the case with the Irish and the IRA, then it is a poor road you are going down, if you are basing this on Muslims, because nobody, knows who the next rapist or murder is going to be
The Arab nations are not going to do anything while they can use their mouths to claim they are opposed to IS while we are over there protecting their businesses and lands from said IS by providing nice ready targets.
Well then it is time the West put pressure on them, as if we did nothing then people will die, so it is a situation which you have to take the risk over doing nothing and at what cost? Which as seen without help ISIS had not been stopped until now with the help of air strikes, and with thousands on the brink of starvation someone had to act, sadly it is again the west who takes up the mantle again

We do not know - hell IS probably does not know and even the Arab nations themselves have probably only considered it in theory - whether the Arab nations are truly opposed to IS and its primitive ideas of life or whether when the chips are down the Arab nations will decide faith is more important than modern living standards and in their hearts they wish to return to the strongest rules.
Absurd belief system, as can show you how many people are against terrorism in these nations.
The only one that is clearly funding them is Saudi's, who see their biggest enemy as Iran

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/concerns-about-islamic-extremism-on-the-rise-in-middle-east/

As to what happens if left to their own devices - do you really think this would be happening now if we had not gone into Iraq?  They have not been left to their own devices they have been subjected to people who think they know what is the best way of life for others and try to bring that way of life about by force.  Which is exactly what is causing people to froth now.
That is a different argument, about if we had gone into Iraq, the fact is we did and made a mess of things and thus have a duty and responsibility to help resolve problems that the west have created. We know going in the first time was wrong, but now is different and an enemy which is capable of hitting people in the west

There is actually no way of telling whether our total withdrawal from the area would result in stability as IS looses its scapegoats and is held in check by the Arab nations who will expect it to deal with them properly.
As seen yes we do know, because as seen IS has gained ground in Iraq, huge gains in fact, showing your perception is wrong here

I have no problem with the use of aggression to protect what is ours - I do have a problem with aggression to "prevent what is ours needing protection".  
The reality is though, extremists are drawn to this new Caliphate, which means problems for our own turf, let alone people in plight as seen and facing real genocide, not the claims we hear from Gaza. The reality is yes there is the problem if we use aircraft and that IS can use this as propaganda, there is also the flip side of doing nothing which to me, shows even greater weakness and gives more of advantage to IS with propaganda showing the west is to afraid to act, thus there is consequences to both sides, the later is more important to hit them hard and not be soft,. showing the west has resolve and is not going to bow down to terror, and you meet fire with fire

The middle east should not be our problem - it should be the Arab nations problems.  We are preventing them having to deal with their own problems and trying to make their problems our problems.  That is not a sensible or effective way to manage human relationships.

The Puzzler wrote:The greatest worry for me is this country ending up like Northern Ireland was during the Troubles but 100 times worse....

Didge wrote:

The Puzzler wrote:The greatest worry for me is this country ending up like Northern Ireland was during the Troubles but 100 times worse....

Bit different, the IRA, had much financial and military help from the US.
What we need to ensure is we do not allow back in those who have gone to fight for IS, they should be hanged for treason, as if we do, we allow Trained bomb makers in, which then you are right, there will be a problem

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I am not talking about them knowing who the enemies are I am talking about us knowing who they are - which at the moment we do not.
Seems very clear to me who they are. If you are suggesting as was once the case with the Irish and the IRA, then it is a poor road you are going down, if you are basing this on Muslims, because nobody, knows who the next rapist or murder is going to be
The Arab nations are not going to do anything while they can use their mouths to claim they are opposed to IS while we are over there protecting their businesses and lands from said IS by providing nice ready targets.
Well then it is time the West put pressure on them, as if we did nothing then people will die, so it is a situation which you have to take the risk over doing nothing and at what cost? Which as seen without help ISIS had not been stopped until now with the help of air strikes, and with thousands on the brink of starvation someone had to act, sadly it is again the west who takes up the mantle again

We do not know - hell IS probably does not know and even the Arab nations themselves have probably only considered it in theory - whether the Arab nations are truly opposed to IS and its primitive ideas of life or whether when the chips are down the Arab nations will decide faith is more important than modern living standards and in their hearts they wish to return to the strongest rules.
Absurd belief system, as can show you how many people are against terrorism in these nations.
The only one that is clearly funding them is Saudi's, who see their biggest enemy as Iran

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/concerns-about-islamic-extremism-on-the-rise-in-middle-east/

As to what happens if left to their own devices - do you really think this would be happening now if we had not gone into Iraq?  They have not been left to their own devices they have been subjected to people who think they know what is the best way of life for others and try to bring that way of life about by force.  Which is exactly what is causing people to froth now.
That is a different argument, about if we had gone into Iraq, the fact is we did and made a mess of things and thus have a duty and responsibility to help resolve problems that the west have created. We know going in the first time was wrong, but now is different and an enemy which is capable of hitting people in the west

There is actually no way of telling whether our total withdrawal from the area would result in stability as IS looses its scapegoats and is held in check by the Arab nations who will expect it to deal with them properly.
As seen yes we do know, because as seen IS has gained ground in Iraq, huge gains in fact, showing your perception is wrong here

I have no problem with the use of aggression to protect what is ours - I do have a problem with aggression to "prevent what is ours needing protection".  
The reality is though, extremists are drawn to this new Caliphate, which means problems for our own turf, let alone people in plight as seen and facing real genocide, not the claims we hear from Gaza. The reality is yes there is the problem if we use aircraft and that IS can use this as propaganda, there is also the flip side of doing nothing which to me, shows even greater weakness and gives more of advantage to IS with propaganda showing the west is to afraid to act, thus there is consequences to both sides, the later is more important to hit them hard and not be soft,. showing the west has resolve and is not going to bow down to terror, and you meet fire with fire

The middle east should not be our problem - it should be the Arab nations problems.  We are preventing them having to deal with their own problems and trying to make their problems our problems.  That is not a sensible or effective way to manage human relationships.

The world is our problem, the world functions through business as a whole enterprise, to just shrug off a major area, would be disastrous for business and jobs here even in the UK. I agree that they need to do more Arab nations themselves in the region, but we still have to play a part. These groups will still see the west as the enemy, whether we are involved or not

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:

The world is our problem, the world functions through business as a whole enterprise, to just shrug off a major area, would be disastrous for business and jobs here even in the UK. I agree that they need to do more Arab nations themselves in the region, but we still have to play a part. These groups will still see the west as the enemy, whether we are involved or not

The world is our problem?

Seriously I am used to be accused of "living in the past" and "grandiose views of the UK position" as a member of UKIP but even I am not so egotistical about my country to hold such a sweeping opinion.
Of course the world is our problem, as it is to every nation, being as the world functions best together not independently, to be so naive to think only of oneself is a very selfish attitude which does nothing to help resolve many problems like starvation or medical problems. If all took your attitude then the world would become stagnated and as it once was in the 19th century elitist, leading to many wars.

Yes the world functions through business as a whole enterprise - but as any successful business person knows that does not make the line leader in packing responsible for the overseeing of the finance department - or even the head of finance department responsible for the packing line.  Yes they have to be aware of each other and ready and willing to help and support each other if asked but unless asked the business runs best if both let the other get on with their own responsibilities.
That is an absurd analogy, as the line leader is an integral part of the machine that makes the whole company function, which without the company would not work, proving even more my point, being as now many companies stretch around the globe to function. Systems do not run based on one department and each helps the other function, so that is showing your lack of understanding how businesses run. It actually shows one of the best success stories of the EU, no wars, because they have united to help each other and not just themselves, where there is conflict is over self government, but there is no reason why this cannot be resolved, but a world working together is better than one that is independent in its thinking

Again I am not suggesting "shrugging off" a major area I am suggesting stopping our interference so we can actually see how major an area it is.  
If we pull back then we have 2-3 possibilities - the Arab nations decide IS does need to be curbed and they take over doing it - in which case we offer fast support if they want but do not send anyone or anything unless and until they do ask.
Again this point has beeen addresses, we did pull back and as seen what has happened in Ira is very much the fundemental part of the mistakes of the invasion of Iraq. That is like starting a business, making a mess and leaving the local populace to clean it up, after a company has left them in turmoil, would you advocate the company to come and clean up? Yes, so why would you excuse nations doing so?

 The Arab nations show support for IS either by actively joining with their activities or continuing to ignore them - in which case we are either entering full on war fight for survival (in actual fact active joining it would show we have already fully engaged in that war and are losing it to boot through allowing the enemy to persuade us some are friends) or facing a complete reorganization of our approach to the problem that involves accepting the Arab nations as hostile non combatants rather than our current assumption of friendly non combatants.
That is absurd, they may also fear action as they already have a problem in many of these nations being as they are theocracies, where their grip is only continued through such regimes which they fear to lose, thus taking away the control they have in their nations, which is the problem, why many do not act. Turkey though it is a democracy, has its own internal problems also with Kurds, being as they have systematically discriminated, against them for years, showing the last thing they would do as help them, showing you do not understand political, as well as ethnic problems between groups within this region, which is why there is a difficulty with Arab nations uniting to help solve problems, the other being the religious difference of Shia and Sunni. Persuasion has to come in the form of what help we already provide financially or military, which again the west will not want to lose out on, based on they could lose massive contracts to the likes of the Chinese or Russia, so there is far more to this which you need to learn to understand about and the I am alright Jack approach is one they have taken, which is to their own peril in the Middle East

Right now our leaders and ourselves are refusing to face reality - we are not taking necessary steps to fully uncover the raw truth because taking those steps would be unpleasant in itself and we are frankly terrified that the truth is going to full on war for survival.  I suspect that history will look back at our current activities in the middle east the same way it looks at a certain prime minister with a certain piece of paper in 1938.

nicko wrote:Glad you posted that didge,  but why are these comments by moderate Muslims hidden to the vast majority of western peoples?  I have never seen these comments in any British newspaper and I bet no one else has either.

nicko wrote:PS'  they are just words ,why no action?

Unexpectedly, the Surooris, the Muslim Brotherhood and other similar extremists have started warning people against ISIS. They all have turned against extremism and against whom they call the al-Khawarij party (the outlawed group). They called on all Muslims to fight against ISIS.

As Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militants continue to wreak havoc across northern Iraq, many Kurds are highly concerned and angry because of their gruesome activities, including female members of Kurdistan’s army, the Peshmerga.

In light of recent ISIS violence against minorities and women, Kurdish female fighters within the Peshmerga Force for Women have been asking their commanders to send them to the frontline to help combat the extremists, the BBC reported.

At least 70 Islamic State of Iraq and Syria militants have been killed in 48 hours of clashes with Syrian army troops in the northern province of Raqa, Agence France-Presse reported a monitoring group as saying Friday.

veya_victaous wrote:@nicko and Sphinx

The Enemy is ISIS they are the enemy of every good person simple as that.

on who we should give arms to well I'm going to suggest that the group with equal rights to extent of female soldiers, that you can see in the picture above are not hijab wearing militants. AND has already come to the rescue of other minorities and religious groups....  long term sure we could have another Saddam but I think we can all agree Saddam is far preferable to ISIS  :::grouch:: 

Eilzel wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@nicko and Sphinx

The Enemy is ISIS they are the enemy of every good person simple as that.

on who we should give arms to well I'm going to suggest that the group with equal rights to extent of female soldiers, that you can see in the picture above are not hijab wearing militants. AND has already come to the rescue of other minorities and religious groups....  long term sure we could have another Saddam but I think we can all agree Saddam is far preferable to ISIS  :::grouch:: 

Another reason we should never have gone to war in 2003. The egos of the Blair and Bush governments truly messed things up in Iraq...

Eilzel wrote:Working with 'undesirables' to defeat a common enemy is hardly unheard of Zack. The west has been cooperating more with Iran since ISIS appeaered and we worked with Stalin while it was neccessary during WW2. It doesn't mean being 'friends' with Assad.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Making friends with someone who gassed his own people.

Strange world.

Tommy Monk wrote:The Kurds are defending against direct attack, and now only now since they have been facing direct attack.
And only a few others paying lip service and telling us how it's nothing to do mitigate Islam etc Blah Blah Blah......
The cartoons got more reaction.....
Says it all really....

Tommy Monk wrote:The Kurds are defending against direct attack, and now only now since they have been facing direct attack.
And only a few others paying lip service and telling us how it's nothing to do mitigate Islam etc Blah Blah Blah......
The cartoons got more reaction.....
Says it all really....