Truth in Media: Origin of ISIS

Must see. From AntiWar.com

In this episode of Truth in Media, Ben Swann explores the origin of ISIS that has already been long forgotten by American media. Swann takes on the central issue of whether or not ISIS was created by "inaction" by the United States government or by "direct" action.

This can last decades. More decades?

Yeah. No no no boots on the ground (even though we already have boots on the ground). Please speak up loudly.[

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I think we armed the Syrian rebels last year with the help of our allies, secretly to oust Assad and it backfired. I don't see any logical reason to help ISIS destabilize the region

a reply to: JDmOKI

I'm still watching it for the second time. Hard to on phone. It's a decent summary, from what I can tell. I'm no expert but I damn sure am anti-war, especially more war in the Middle East that will entrench us for decades.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: JDmOKI

I'm still watching it for the second time. Hard to on phone. It's a decent summary, from what I can tell. I'm no expert but I damn sure am anti-war, especially more war in the Middle East that will entrench us for decades.

Exactly. The only kind of war I want to have to fight is a defensive one. We haven't fought a defensive war since WWII.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I 100% agree. I don't want any US boots on the ground which would perpetuate young radicals to join their cause. Its time for Middle Eastern countries to fight for their ideologies, if they want that.... sometimes im not so sure

At what point, if you sit back and watch a potential enemy get stronger and stronger, do you intervene? Or is a preemptive strike to prevent a much larger, longer, deadlier war not an option for you?

Also, what is your opinion on maintaining a standing army with the world's best training and technology, while we sit back and refuse to go to war unless attacked.

And in your every day life, hypothetically, if you see a threat but it hasn't effected you yet.....do you nip it in the butt, or do you wait til it happens to you?

originally posted by: f4rwest
At what point, if you sit back and watch a potential enemy get stronger and stronger, do you intervene? Or is a preemptive strike to prevent a much larger, longer, deadlier war not an option for you?

Never. Do you go to your place of employment and attempt to beat up all the body builders there because they could eventually pose a physical threat to you?

Also, what is your opinion on maintaining a standing army with the world's best training and technology, while we sit back and refuse to go to war unless attacked.

Are you suggesting that since we have the training and the tech therefore we NEED to use it?

And in your every day life, hypothetically, if you see a threat but it hasn't effected you yet.....do you nip it in the butt, or do you wait til it happens to you?

In your every day life, do you know what a threat looks like? You know there are organizations and groups of people who pose a greater danger to America than all the Muslim terrorists combined, but we get crickets about the danger they pose.

a reply to: f4rwest

Potential enemy. That's a pretty key word there.

Whose enemy are they? And why does their enemy not stand against them?

So if we have the world's largest standing army we should use it? Is that what you are getting at? Why go to war unless attacked is another question to ask here.

I don't see it as a threat to us. We have one hell of a law enforcement and defense structure.

Maybe so good that we don't get to fight in as many wars as some would have us fight in?

This is not our war.

I think that Pepe Escobar has it correct ,when he calls the US the Empire of chaos . Look at the track record of what they have left behind in the wake of their interventions and it would be hard to argue against that . R2P and war on terrorism is only a feel good semantic to keep on keeping on . Confessions of a hit man tells the early days of what they were doing and still want to do . The Euro/american establishment and all of her tentacles are going to be chickens that will come home to roost .

The people of the world have seen it in early American history and how they were towards the original peoples here and are just the same way with other peoples around the world . Shame on you ,you monsters that hide behind the scenes and to those that work with you .You will have your reward .

originally posted by: f4rwest
At what point, if you sit back and watch a potential enemy get stronger and stronger, do you intervene? Or is a preemptive strike to prevent a much larger, longer, deadlier war not an option for you?

Sadly, History is the only one who can ever answer that recurring conundrum.
The course of all human history has been steered by simple timing.

Krazyshot,I think the only defensive war the US faced was the war of independence. In the 2WW US was attacked at Pearl and from then on it was and always will be classed as an aggressive war on the part of US.
Just an analogy think of isis like this. You have a small tree, a sapling, no where near you. To control it you might prune it, control it or you might kill it by digging out the roots.
But if you leave it, it will grow into a mighty tree and reproduce and before long you have a forest. Because the original tree wasn't bothering you and you left well alone.
Now all of a sudden you have a forest on your doorstep, it's too late to go to the original tree to stop the forest. If you had killed the sapling when you had the chance the forest would not be a problem for you.
Think on that. At the moment it's no where near you, it doesn't concern you. But sooner or later it will.

I have researched a completely new idea on the origins of ISIS. I would like to sdtart my own thread but I need 20 posts unfortunately.

a reply to: InSatanIsisServes

Are you there yet?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

getting there

a reply to: InSatanIsisServes

12 more

a reply to: crayzeed

Could most of the world not use the same argument against the USA/UKetc - should strike 1st before they send in the drones, destabilise our currency, encourage insurrection.......

Seems to me most countries of the world have more to fear from the military complex (particularly of the USA) than we do of them.

Also would that not imply it is ok for me to go around attacking anybody in the street i suspect of causing trouble in the future?

a reply to: johnb
Just wait they are coming to a town near you. That statement is not a joke but a reality that is coming. I have not the slightest thing to worry about from the US or GB military. I just hope they will be there for me when the SHTF in this country. I doubt it ,but I hope.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Great find Lucidity but the problem is that the 30 years war is a ruse.

Its gong to take 30 years to destroy a few thousand terrorist

Only if they want to take 30 years

Btw what they said at the beginning I have been saying since day 1 of the ISIS appearance

IRAQ 2003 WAR STARTED THIS

Sure the Syrian civil war also enflamed it (another US folly)


The key to all of this is trying to determine WHY IS AMERICA DESTABILIZING ARAB COUNTRIES

You would think…sure those are the Arab countries that are geopolitical enemies of America.

Libya was not that

Nor was Egypt

Are we running an Israeli Foreign policy?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I like you Lucidity lately

But believe me THIS IS OUR WAR

Every bullet every dead man and every gun is the US of A war machine behind this

There is no way the US can extricate from this


The only way this could have been avoided is now history

we fought and fought to stop them in 2003 to stop them but there were too many silent voices then

its too late

a reply to: ~Lucidity



There's only one way out for the US.

And the Zionist and Neocons will pollute it

Obama has a chance to fix it. But he doesn't have the heart to do it and he has too many Zionist around him to do it as well.

The only hope is the Iraqi army has a miracle