"Syrian Girl" tells truth about ISIS

https://youtu.be/IQ2KzjNtDTc

Yeah but she is hot. So maybe she knows what she's talking about.

She may be fit, but some of her claims are conspiracy claims, at best of the fringe of lunacy, saying this is part of western design, without a shred of evidence, let alone, how it in fact would even benefit the west being as the destabilising of the region would be counter productive to the west, especially economically:


Anyway this article sums up very well my point:








Did you know that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Isis, was trained by Mossad and the CIA? Were you aware that his real name isn't Ibrahim Awwad Ibrahim Ali al-Badri al-Samarrai but Simon Elliot? Or that he's a Jewish actor who was recruited by the Israelis to play the part of the world's most wanted terrorist?


If the messages in my email in-box and my Twitter timeline and on my Facebook page are anything to go by, plenty of Muslims are not only willing to believe this nonsensical drivel but are super-keen to share it with their friends. The bizarre claim that NSA documents released by Edward Snowden "prove" the US and Israel are behind al-Baghdadi's actions has gone viral.


There's only one problem. "It's utter BS," Glenn Greenwald, the investigative journalist who helped break the NSA story, told me. "Snowden never said anything like that and no [NSA] documents suggest it." Snowden's lawyer, Ben Wizner, has called the story a hoax.


But millions of Muslims across the globe have a soft spot for such hoaxes. Conspiracy theories are rife in both Muslim-majority countries and Muslim communities here in the west. The events of 9/11 and the subsequent "war on terror" unleashed a vast array of hoaxers, hucksters and fantasists from Birmingham to Beirut.


On a visit to Iraq in 2002, I met a senior Islamic cleric who told me that Jews, not Arabs, had been responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He loudly repeated the Middle East's most popular and pernicious 9/11 conspiracy theory: that 4,000 Jews didn't turn up for work on 11 September 2001 because they had been forewarned about the attacks.


There is, of course, no evidence for this outlandish and offensive claim. The truth is that more than 200 Jews, including several Israeli citizens, were killed in the attacks on the twin towers. I guess they must have missed the memo from Mossad.


Yet the denialism persists. A Pew poll in 2011, a decade after 9/11, found that a majority of respondents in countries such as Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon refused to believe that the attacks were carried out by Arab members of al-Qaeda. "There is no Muslim public in which even 30 per cent accept that Arabs conducted the attacks," the Pew researchers noted.


This blindness isn't peculiar to the Arab world or the Middle East. Consider Pakistan, home to many of the world's weirdest and wackiest conspiracy theories. Some Pakistanis say the schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai is a CIA agent. Others think that the heavy floods of 2010, which killed 2,000 Pakistanis, were caused by secret US military technology. And two out of three don't believe Osama Bin Laden was killed by US navy Seals on Pakistani soil on 2 May 2011.


Consider also Nigeria, where there was a polio outbreak in 2003 after local people boycotted the vaccine, claiming it was a western plot to infect Muslims with HIV. Then there is Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim-majority country, where leading politicians and journalists blamed the 2002 Bali bombings on US agents.


Why are so many of my fellow Muslims so gullible and so quick to believe bonkers conspiracy theories? How have the pedlars of paranoia amassed such influence within Muslim communities?


First, we should be fair: it's worth noting that Muslim-majority nations have been on the receiving end of various actual conspiracies. France and Britain did secretly conspire to carve up the Middle East between them with the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. They also conspired to attack Egypt, with Israel's help, and thereby provoked the Suez crisis of 1956. Oh, and it turned out there weren't any WMDs in Iraq in 2003 despite what the dossiers claimed.


I once asked the Pakistani politician Imran Khan why his fellow citizens were so keen on conspiracy theories. "They're lied to all the time by their leaders," he replied. "If a society is used to listening to lies all the time.. everything becomes a conspiracy."


The "We've been lied to" argument goes only so far. Scepticism may be evidence of a healthy and independent mindset; but conspiracism is a virus that feeds off insecurity and bitterness. As the former Pakistani diplomat Husain Haqqani has admitted, "the contemporary Muslim fascination for conspiracy theories" is a convenient way of "explaining the powerlessness of a community that was at one time the world's economic, scientific, political and military leader".


Nor is this about ignorance or illiteracy. Those who promulgate a paranoid, conspiratorial world-view within Muslim communities include the highly educated and highly qualified, the rulers as well as the ruled. A recent conspiracy theory blaming the rise of Islamic State on the US government, based on fabricated quotes from Hillary Clinton's new memoir, was publicly endorsed by Lebanon's foreign minister and Egypt's culture minister.


Where will it end? When will credulous Muslims stop leaning on the conspiracy crutch? We blame sinister outside powers for all our problems - extremism, despotism, corruption and the rest - and paint ourselves as helpless victims rather than indepen­dent agents. After all, why take responsibility for our actions when it's far easier to point the finger at the CIA/Mossad/the Jews/the Hindus/fill-in-your-villain-of-choice?


As the Egyptian intellectual Abd al-Munim Said once observed, "The biggest problem with conspiracy theories is that they keep us not only from the truth, but also from confronting our faults and problems." They also make us look like loons. Can we give it a rest, please?



[ltr]http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/conspiracy-theories-islam_b_5770576.html[/ltr]

Of course there are plenty of conspiracy theories out there and most, if not all, are bullshit.

But to suggest that the US have not been manipulating events in the area is equally naive.

Funny how there are always a flood of conspiracy theories when they're trying to hide the truth.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Of course there are plenty of conspiracy theories out there and most, if not all, are bullshit.

But to suggest that the US have not been manipulating events in the area is equally naive.

Funny how there are always a flood of conspiracy theories when they're trying to hide the truth.

She claimed they are behind IS, which is sheer bullshit Zack, which is the point I am making, as to mistakes done under previous Governments, nobody is denying and the world continues to try to play pressure on other nations all the time, that is nothing new or even hidden, just some of her comments were barmy, based on nothing more than her own and others perception, not facts.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Of course there are plenty of conspiracy theories out there and most, if not all, are bullshit.

But to suggest that the US have not been manipulating events in the area is equally naive.

Funny how there are always a flood of conspiracy theories when they're trying to hide the truth.

She claimed they are behind IS, which is sheer bullshit Zack, which is the point I am making, as to mistakes done under previous Governments, nobody is denying and the world continues to try to play pressure on other nations all the time, that is nothing new or even hidden, just some of her comments were barmy, based on nothing more than her own and others perception, not facts.

But I wouldn't dismiss everything she's said. She's right about the US losing influence over the Maliki government to Iran. The US used ISIS to get rid of Maliki.

Let's not pretend the US are focussing on ISIS and this region because of the beheadings. Many have been beheaded before and the US have only fought back with rhetoric.

IF ANYONE really wants to push their conspiracy theories upwards and onwards, I would suggest that they will get far better and quicker results if they target the mining, oil and gas corporations and cartels, the arms manufacturers and financiers, and certain mass media companies, first and foremost ~ rather than singling out any one nation...

ESPECIALLY considering that the incontrovertible fact of the involvement of the mining, oil and armaments industries in many modern conflicts has been so well documented and recorded since the late 19 century..
 

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

She claimed they are behind IS, which is sheer bullshit Zack, which is the point I am making, as to mistakes done under previous Governments, nobody is denying and the world continues to try to play pressure on other nations all the time, that is nothing new or even hidden, just some of her comments were barmy, based on nothing more than her own and others perception, not facts.

But I wouldn't dismiss everything she's said. She's right about the US losing influence over the Maliki government to Iran. The US used ISIS to get rid of Maliki.

Let's not pretend the US are focussing on ISIS and this region because of the beheadings. Many have been beheaded before and the US have only fought back with rhetoric.  

Nah, do not agree with that either, again it is circumstantial based around again a very hostile perception many Muslims in that part of the world have of America on your view in the US using IS to get rid of Maliki.
This clearly has more to do with economic stability based upon if IS grow a further threat which at present is mainly constrained to Iraq and Syria so to say it is because of the beheading is slightly wrong being as force has been used before any such beheadings had started. So that view holds little validity, when help through armed force was already in use.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

But I wouldn't dismiss everything she's said. She's right about the US losing influence over the Maliki government to Iran. The US used ISIS to get rid of Maliki.

Let's not pretend the US are focussing on ISIS and this region because of the beheadings. Many have been beheaded before and the US have only fought back with rhetoric.  

Nah, do not agree with that either, again it is circumstantial based around again a very hostile perception many Muslims in that part of the world have of America on your view in the US using IS to get rid of Maliki.
This clearly has more to do with economic stability based upon if IS grow a further threat which at present is mainly constrained to Iraq and Syria so to say it is because of the beheading is slightly wrong being as force has been used before any such beheadings had started. So that view holds little validity, when help through armed force was already in use.

And didn't say it was because of beheadings. I said, do you think the US are focussing in this area because of the beheadings? You are right, it is because of economic stability - but not necessarily in the Middle East.

And it's also true that the Maliki government was getting increasingly close to Iran. Which is why the US got rid of them, using the ethnic disunity caused by ISIS as an excuse.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Nah, do not agree with that either, again it is circumstantial based around again a very hostile perception many Muslims in that part of the world have of America on your view in the US using IS to get rid of Maliki.
This clearly has more to do with economic stability based upon if IS grow a further threat which at present is mainly constrained to Iraq and Syria so to say it is because of the beheading is slightly wrong being as force has been used before any such beheadings had started. So that view holds little validity, when help through armed force was already in use.

And didn't say it was because of beheadings. I said, do you think the US are focussing in this area because of the beheadings? You are right, it is because of economic stability - but not necessarily in the Middle East.

And it's also true that the Maliki government was getting increasingly close to Iran. Which is why the US got rid of them, using the ethnic disunity caused by ISIS as an excuse.

Again to me Iran and America now need each other, for Maliki to go had more to do with keeping Iraq unified through its different religious and ethnic groups. Keeping the country united would be key strategically in helping combat IS. Yes this may have some overtures in denying Iran more influence but this is not true, being as Iran special forces have been operating within Iraq itself and its defense. They did nothing to keep Maliki in power, where they could have.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29079052

So again where already they are assisting each other, even Iran knows that unity is key in Iraq for them to be successful against IS, thus they would have fought harder to keep Maliki of which they did not, thus he was not that key after all. How he went is up for debate, but the reality is he had to go and both sides knew this for there to be any hope of defeating IS in Iraq. If he had stayed in power, Iraq would have split, of which it was very close to doing so, you have to ask why you are ignoring why Iran did little save Maliki, because all sides wanted unity, which he was hampering.

A few years ago, it was almost impossible to find a photograph of Qasem Soleimani.

Now Iranian TV channels show documentaries about him, and his picture is on the front page of many newspapers.

For Gen Soleimani the time has come to emerge from the shadows and reap what he has been sowing for decades as head of the elite Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

He is reported to be in Baghdad now, planning a strategy to curb further advances by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS).

Gen Soleimani has faced the jihadist group before, but in neighbouring Syria.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27883162

Lone Wolf wrote:

IF ANYONE really wants to push their conspiracy theories upwards and onwards, I would suggest that they will get far better and quicker results if they target the mining, oil and gas corporations and cartels, the arms manufacturers and financiers, and certain mass media companies, first and foremost ~ rather than singling out any one nation...

ESPECIALLY considering that the incontrovertible fact of the involvement of the mining, oil and armaments industries in many modern conflicts has been so well documented and recorded since the late 19 century..
 

+100
the Corporcracy have already corrupted our national gov'ts, what has been bad news after bad news for the world has been profit after profit for them.