The Real Goal of ISIL/ISIS/IS

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: thesmokingman

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: thesmokingman

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I think they are exactly what they say they are. The MSM is reporting it...it isn't like all MSM can be in on some huge secret about a covert operation to dethrone Assad. They simply have no respect for anything other than what they believe is right. And they will kill anyone that says otherwise. They recruit many that are nobody's in their lives and want that feeling of belonging to something. They recruit via social media because those that they can recruit are the ones that USE social media....typically people that are easily swayed by social media and can't think critically for themselves.

I don't see this as any type of major operation by any other forces than IS. While they may be getting funding from plenty of sources, they are not operatives of these sources, but these sources DO likely see an advantage to having some upheaval in the area.

Either way...they will be dealt with. I don't see a nuke hitting mainland US....ever.

Actually, when the MSM is entirely ran by the Jewish/Zionists, it makes perfect sense that they are just reporting exactly what they want you to hear. Did you know that I believe it was Foley and Sottloff, some of the first vivtims of ISIS, were both actually kidnapped previously to being kidnapped a second time, and eventually killed? Why on earth would you go back to the very place that you were kidnapped before? Hmmm.

Well I guess that begs the question and the evidence as to why you believe they were kidnapped before they were kidnapped. As to why on earth you would go back....you first need to prove they DID go back with something tangible other than your belief I would say.

Research it...

I don't need to research it....you made the claim and I said it is ridiculous. No amount of research is out there to back it up, and the fact you can't link to it makes that even more obvious.

ETA since you edited:

They are reporters....most reporters go back into areas of conflict when they want a story....plenty of reporters have done the same over the years. They don't just go in once....they keep going back. They like the rush, the story and the money that comes from the big stories. Where is the conspiracy angle of them going in more than once?

They did not just go there twice...they were both KIDNAPPED twice!!! That is the "conspiracy" angle. And there is more. Read more about John Cantlie...there sure is a lot more to the story.

originally posted by: MasterMaximum
a reply to: Vasa Croe

If you think that a few top people cannot dictate the policy of a media outlet(most are owned by the same people) you are delusional.

Regarding ISIS, if it is a conspiracy, how many reporters would be able to expose it anyway? Real proof requires inside knowledge, which they don't have.

Btw, any comments on the thread I linked?

Stop ignoring the main point. You cannot control all the media across all the world across all religions, languages, cultures and political affiliations. The vast majority of them all report ISIS the same way.

Why does that point float past you? I can only think of one reason. The second you face up to that incredibly inconvenient fact this whole "ISIS is not who they are conspiracy" comes tumbling down.

a reply to: thesmokingman

Although I won't rehash your points, I generally agree on the big picture. ISIS is being strengthened day by day by equipment and recruits, despite vaunted successful encounters and bombings from the West. The reason it is continuing on is that it has a bigger role to play in polarizing the people of the world before the slowly escalating move to a greater scenario. To get a NWO in place, national, cultural borders and extremes have to be eliminated.

As I watch the goings-on everywhere I see the manipulators of events much more clearly. The effect it all has on me is to realize we have been completely sold out, that our input is not required or desired unless we are the type to serve a physical role in unfolding events. Those horrifying videos serve a purpose, namely to keep on polarizing us and forcing the extremists out into the open. Well I have no interest in ever watching one of their grizzly videos. I have been grossed out enough in my ER and hospital service lifetime to satisfy anyone.

We are in an advanced state of being controlled. The method of controlling us and making us docile is to make us believe that voting can change things and that we have a say. I no longer believe any of that. As a result I am feeling more and more detached from this whole scene. I will not hate muslims or Christians or whomever the governments and MSM tell me to. The distractions of the Hollywood scene are superfluous and idiotic to me. I am just not playing anymore.

I am plenty angry about being so badly duped, but then again, I was not born a street-wise person, but rather an innocent. I do not admire aggression or fighting, never have, never will. So whether ISIS grows and expands, or whether it shrinks and fizzles out, it matters not. It is serving someone's planned purpose at the moment.

a reply to: yorkshirelad

They cannot control all media, right, that's why you only hear such a thing on outlets that are not owned by them.

I'm not saying ISIS is not real, I'm saying they are being funded by someone to do their biddding. Off course the media reports on what ISIS does.

Now if one smart journalist is bright enough to see this he can write a story about it but,

A. He can't prove it.

B. Boss won't publish it.

C. Puts reputation at stake for believing "outlandish conspiracy theories"

a reply to: Vasa Croe

You seem to think that I believe that ISIS is not really there or something. How did you make such an assumption?

With the bulk of western media in the hands of just five mega corporations....indeed reportage of most anything can and will be skewed to reflect the editorial slant that's been dictated by the corporate owners....
These facts are irrefutable and the postulation that MSM is independent is ridiculous on the face of it......
If we do not have dependable information we are in essence at the mercy of those who feed us the news as they want it seen and heard....
Countless instances of misreportage, and the substitution of film footage from one crisis applied to another and reported as fact have been documented....
Anyone trusting the MSM should give that trust a re evaluation.....
Who is driving these crises remains in the shadowy background steering the world in directions of their own choosing.....

Plenty of varied interests are being served and the cloudy information we receive is shakey at best....suspect for sure, and entirely manufactured at worst.
How anyone could miss that is beyond my ken....

originally posted by: thesmokingman

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: thesmokingman

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: thesmokingman

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I think they are exactly what they say they are. The MSM is reporting it...it isn't like all MSM can be in on some huge secret about a covert operation to dethrone Assad. They simply have no respect for anything other than what they believe is right. And they will kill anyone that says otherwise. They recruit many that are nobody's in their lives and want that feeling of belonging to something. They recruit via social media because those that they can recruit are the ones that USE social media....typically people that are easily swayed by social media and can't think critically for themselves.

I don't see this as any type of major operation by any other forces than IS. While they may be getting funding from plenty of sources, they are not operatives of these sources, but these sources DO likely see an advantage to having some upheaval in the area.

Either way...they will be dealt with. I don't see a nuke hitting mainland US....ever.

Actually, when the MSM is entirely ran by the Jewish/Zionists, it makes perfect sense that they are just reporting exactly what they want you to hear. Did you know that I believe it was Foley and Sottloff, some of the first vivtims of ISIS, were both actually kidnapped previously to being kidnapped a second time, and eventually killed? Why on earth would you go back to the very place that you were kidnapped before? Hmmm.

Well I guess that begs the question and the evidence as to why you believe they were kidnapped before they were kidnapped. As to why on earth you would go back....you first need to prove they DID go back with something tangible other than your belief I would say.

Research it...

I don't need to research it....you made the claim and I said it is ridiculous. No amount of research is out there to back it up, and the fact you can't link to it makes that even more obvious.

ETA since you edited:

They are reporters....most reporters go back into areas of conflict when they want a story....plenty of reporters have done the same over the years. They don't just go in once....they keep going back. They like the rush, the story and the money that comes from the big stories. Where is the conspiracy angle of them going in more than once?

They did not just go there twice...they were both KIDNAPPED twice!!! That is the "conspiracy" angle. And there is more. Read more about John Cantlie...there sure is a lot more to the story.

What's your point about being kidnapped twice? Plenty of reporters have been held captive on occasions. And sure they probably went there more than those two times. From stories I read, reporters actually attempt to be kidnapped by certain groups so they can get the inside story on them....not saying they attempt to get killed by these groups, but their angle is that they can help the groups get their stories out to the world.

So you think Foley was kidnapped, got the story out, but it was a fake story, was kidnapped again and killed because of this or something? Did he intentionally get kidnapped twice and sacrifice himself for his "Zionist" media masters, was he in on it, or are you claiming he isn't dead? What is your angle on him being kidnapped twice? Why does that even matter?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: thesmokingman

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: thesmokingman

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: thesmokingman

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I think they are exactly what they say they are. The MSM is reporting it...it isn't like all MSM can be in on some huge secret about a covert operation to dethrone Assad. They simply have no respect for anything other than what they believe is right. And they will kill anyone that says otherwise. They recruit many that are nobody's in their lives and want that feeling of belonging to something. They recruit via social media because those that they can recruit are the ones that USE social media....typically people that are easily swayed by social media and can't think critically for themselves.

I don't see this as any type of major operation by any other forces than IS. While they may be getting funding from plenty of sources, they are not operatives of these sources, but these sources DO likely see an advantage to having some upheaval in the area.

Either way...they will be dealt with. I don't see a nuke hitting mainland US....ever.

Actually, when the MSM is entirely ran by the Jewish/Zionists, it makes perfect sense that they are just reporting exactly what they want you to hear. Did you know that I believe it was Foley and Sottloff, some of the first vivtims of ISIS, were both actually kidnapped previously to being kidnapped a second time, and eventually killed? Why on earth would you go back to the very place that you were kidnapped before? Hmmm.

Well I guess that begs the question and the evidence as to why you believe they were kidnapped before they were kidnapped. As to why on earth you would go back....you first need to prove they DID go back with something tangible other than your belief I would say.

Research it...

I don't need to research it....you made the claim and I said it is ridiculous. No amount of research is out there to back it up, and the fact you can't link to it makes that even more obvious.

ETA since you edited:

They are reporters....most reporters go back into areas of conflict when they want a story....plenty of reporters have done the same over the years. They don't just go in once....they keep going back. They like the rush, the story and the money that comes from the big stories. Where is the conspiracy angle of them going in more than once?

They did not just go there twice...they were both KIDNAPPED twice!!! That is the "conspiracy" angle. And there is more. Read more about John Cantlie...there sure is a lot more to the story.

What's your point about being kidnapped twice? Plenty of reporters have been held captive on occasions. And sure they probably went there more than those two times. From stories I read, reporters actually attempt to be kidnapped by certain groups so they can get the inside story on them....not saying they attempt to get killed by these groups, but their angle is that they can help the groups get their stories out to the world.

So you think Foley was kidnapped, got the story out, but it was a fake story, was kidnapped again and killed because of this or something? Did he intentionally get kidnapped twice and sacrifice himself for his "Zionist" media masters, was he in on it, or are you claiming he isn't dead? What is your angle on him being kidnapped twice? Why does that even matter?

You asked for proof of what I said, I provided it. Now, where are your links?

originally posted by: MasterMaximum
a reply to: Vasa Croe

You seem to think that I believe that ISIS is not really there or something. How did you make such an assumption?

Not sure where you got that thought....I know exactly what you think. IS is being paid by multiple governments and the MSM is part of it and covering it up around the world.

At least that's it in a short version I am guessing.

I am saying that your idea of MSM worldwide being in on this is ridiculous....just in your personal life, how many people do you know that can keep a secret? Now, imagine that secret is the BIGGEST secret on the planet and quite a few thousand people know about it....and ALL those people are writers and editors and reporters who are chomping at the bit for a great story to blow the whole can of worms wide open on anything at all....you think they are going to sit on that?

Like I said....the theory of this being the case is completely ridiculous.

originally posted by: thesmokingman

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: thesmokingman

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: thesmokingman

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: thesmokingman

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I think they are exactly what they say they are. The MSM is reporting it...it isn't like all MSM can be in on some huge secret about a covert operation to dethrone Assad. They simply have no respect for anything other than what they believe is right. And they will kill anyone that says otherwise. They recruit many that are nobody's in their lives and want that feeling of belonging to something. They recruit via social media because those that they can recruit are the ones that USE social media....typically people that are easily swayed by social media and can't think critically for themselves.

I don't see this as any type of major operation by any other forces than IS. While they may be getting funding from plenty of sources, they are not operatives of these sources, but these sources DO likely see an advantage to having some upheaval in the area.

Either way...they will be dealt with. I don't see a nuke hitting mainland US....ever.

Actually, when the MSM is entirely ran by the Jewish/Zionists, it makes perfect sense that they are just reporting exactly what they want you to hear. Did you know that I believe it was Foley and Sottloff, some of the first vivtims of ISIS, were both actually kidnapped previously to being kidnapped a second time, and eventually killed? Why on earth would you go back to the very place that you were kidnapped before? Hmmm.

Well I guess that begs the question and the evidence as to why you believe they were kidnapped before they were kidnapped. As to why on earth you would go back....you first need to prove they DID go back with something tangible other than your belief I would say.

Research it...

I don't need to research it....you made the claim and I said it is ridiculous. No amount of research is out there to back it up, and the fact you can't link to it makes that even more obvious.

ETA since you edited:

They are reporters....most reporters go back into areas of conflict when they want a story....plenty of reporters have done the same over the years. They don't just go in once....they keep going back. They like the rush, the story and the money that comes from the big stories. Where is the conspiracy angle of them going in more than once?

They did not just go there twice...they were both KIDNAPPED twice!!! That is the "conspiracy" angle. And there is more. Read more about John Cantlie...there sure is a lot more to the story.

What's your point about being kidnapped twice? Plenty of reporters have been held captive on occasions. And sure they probably went there more than those two times. From stories I read, reporters actually attempt to be kidnapped by certain groups so they can get the inside story on them....not saying they attempt to get killed by these groups, but their angle is that they can help the groups get their stories out to the world.

So you think Foley was kidnapped, got the story out, but it was a fake story, was kidnapped again and killed because of this or something? Did he intentionally get kidnapped twice and sacrifice himself for his "Zionist" media masters, was he in on it, or are you claiming he isn't dead? What is your angle on him being kidnapped twice? Why does that even matter?

You asked for proof of what I said, I provided it. Now, where are your links?

Links to what? Your story says he was kidnapped twice. In your own link, the guy telling the story said he wanted to go back to get more of the story and was kidnapped again....there is no conspiracy to him being a reporter and going into a wartorn area to get a story.

I guess I could link back to your story and quote it if you'd like....

Source

James was kidnapped twice. The first time was in Libya, in 2011. Two weeks after he was released, he told an interviewer, "If reporters, if we don't try to get really close to what these guys—men, women, Americans—and now, with this Arab revolution, young Arab men—are experiencing, we don't understand the world, essentially." This is true. Without people like James on the ground, it is impossible to understand what is happening in places like Syria. And without understanding, how do we decide what to do (or not to do)?

James went to Syria to report on the most deadly war in the world. More than 9 million people have been driven out of their homes. The country is also the most dangerous place to be a journalist—at least 66 have been killed there since 2010. Most of these were Syrian. Countless journalists are still missing. In the video claiming to show James being beheaded, ISIS showed another kidnapped American journalist, Stephen Sotloff. It warned that he, too, would be executed if the United States did not end its intervention in Iraq.

Like his buddy said...there are other reporters there that have been captured, and two weeks after he was released the first time he continued to report and interview and decided to go back.

Here is another source with another quote on Foley which shows he was in it for the big score....

Foley, who had the support of his media organization, Global­Post, made a different decision. Following his 2011 abduction by the Gaddafi regime during a reporting stint in Libya, he described to Topol the “freelancer’s conundrum” in assessing danger: “I think it’s just basic laws of competition; you need to have something the staffers don’t, but in a conflict zone that means you take bigger risks: go in sooner, stay longer, go closer.”

Sou rce

And he wasn't even captured by IS or anyone related to them the first time...he was simply covering the conflict there as a free-lance journalist, which is also how he died....as a free-lance journalist.....which is why the story likely got so much attention.....the smaller paper had a big story when their free-lancer was the one that was being executed.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I am saying that your idea of MSM worldwide being in on this is ridiculous...

They are not in on it like that, why would they be privy to potential secret deals and operations? Like I said, they report what happens and there is not a lot of enthusiasm for conspiracy theories in the MSM.

originally posted by: MasterMaximum
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I am saying that your idea of MSM worldwide being in on this is ridiculous...

They are not in on it like that, why would they be privy to potential secret deals and operations? Like I said, they report what happens and there is not a lot of enthusiasm for conspiracy theories in the MSM.

You said:

The editorial staffs/producers of the big networks and newspapers. It's not that many people really.

Which includes thousands of people worldwide....so how exactly are you proposing they are in on it then?

Are you now backtracking and saying you are NOT saying that?

If I am mistaken then please correct me and tell me exactly what you ARE saying.

Your original intro into this thread was as vague as you are being now.....

originally posted by: MasterMaximum
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I think they are exactly what they say they are. The MSM is reporting it...it isn't like all MSM can be in on some huge secret about a covert operation to dethrone Assad.

MSM can be trusted then. Ok. We can all log off now.

So they are either reporting it as it is, or there is some conspiracy you are claiming that they are somehow NOT reporting it how it is. Either way, the actual reporters in the field have to be shut up if they are not reporting what is actually going on.

Please give me some clarity as to your opinion.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Which includes thousands of people worldwide....so how exactly are you proposing they are in on it then?

Like I said at least twice already, by not publishing stories about "conspiracy theories". I am not backtracking at all, you are just not getting it.

So they are either reporting it as it is, or there is some conspiracy you are claiming that they are somehow NOT reporting it how it is. Either way, the actual reporters in the field have to be shut up if they are not reporting what is actually going on.

But they are reporting what is going on, but they are not reporting on what's behind it. An example of why they can't be trusted. It doesn't mean they are in on the whole deal.


This is your initial remark that already shows your logical error.

I think they are exactly what they say they are. The MSM is reporting it...it isn't like all MSM can be in on some huge secret about a covert operation to dethrone Assad.

What the OP is proposing has nothing to do with the media being in on it. In on what? Why would they have to be in on secret deals being made?

originally posted by: MasterMaximum
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Which includes thousands of people worldwide....so how exactly are you proposing they are in on it then?

Like I said at least twice already, by not publishing stories about "conspiracy theories". I am not backtracking at all, you are just not getting it.

So they are either reporting it as it is, or there is some conspiracy you are claiming that they are somehow NOT reporting it how it is. Either way, the actual reporters in the field have to be shut up if they are not reporting what is actually going on.

But they are reporting what is going on, but they are not reporting on what's behind it. An example of why they can't be trusted. It doesn't mean they are in on the whole deal.


This is your initial remark that already shows your logical error.

I think they are exactly what they say they are. The MSM is reporting it...it isn't like all MSM can be in on some huge secret about a covert operation to dethrone Assad.

What the OP is proposing has nothing to do with the media being in on it. In on what? Why would they have to be in on secret deals being made?

The OP is proposing exactly that.....the MSM is not reporting on it being some covert mulit-government operation.

There is no logical error in anything I am saying. The logical error in this argument is that MSM would choose NOT to report those findings. Unless you are proposing that they could not possibly KNOW those findings and that IS and it's 30K members are keeping it a secret as well?

By not publishing conspiracy theories? So they are publishing lies and the conspiracy theories are the truth or something? As in, we here on this site know more than the journalists on the ground there because we have somehow hacked government organizations and have documented evidence of coverup by editors and producers for MSM companies and how they convince their reporters in the field to NOT report conspiracy, but instead sacrifice themselves and put themselves in harms way to cover a fake story?

They either have to be in on it or not...there is no in between. That or all of IS is in on it and they only talk to the top heads of government who in turn ONLY talk to the heads of MSM, who in turn manage to spend every waking hour of their executive time on editing and writing what is released to the public.

Again....ridiculous in every sense of the matter.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

The OP is proposing exactly that.....the MSM is not reporting on it being some covert mulit-government operation.

The op briefly mentions the MSM but the focus of his thread is this,

That being said, this thread is not about debating the legitimacy of ISIS, but rather a critical thinking thread about exactly what the goal of ISIS is, and WHY they were indeed created, and for what purpose. The following is a list of reasons that I believe they were indeed created, and what their goal is.

None of his listed reasons have anything to do with the MSM.

The logical error in this argument is that MSM would choose NOT to report those findings. Unless you are proposing that they could not possibly KNOW those findings and that IS and it's 30K members are keeping it a secret as well?

What findings?

ISIS members don't have to keep a secret, they are real jihadi scum who don have to know who is really funding them for what reason. They are easily led on. You just have to own the leaders.

By not publishing conspiracy theories? So they are publishing lies and the conspiracy theories are the truth or something? As in, we here on this site know more than the journalists on the ground there because we have somehow hacked government organizations and have documented evidence of coverup by editors and producers for MSM companies and how they convince their reporters in the field to NOT report conspiracy, but instead sacrifice themselves and put themselves in harms way to cover a fake story?

Still arguing that moot point. They are reporting the war on the ground. There is nothing to see there that would support the OP's suggestions. I am not saying they are reporting fake stories.

The OP is listing reasons why he thinks there are particular entities behind ISIS. It has nothing to do with what the media is reporting.

And I am saying that conspiracy theories are a nono in the MSM. Do you really want to argue against that?

a reply to: yorkshirelad

Stop ignoring the main point. You cannot control all the media across all the world across all religions, languages, cultures and political affiliations. The vast majority of them all report ISIS the same wa

Yes you can some five corperations own almost the entire news network in the western world..

Follow the money..

purp..

a reply to: Vasa Croe

You dont think they can do it.. We just had two wars based on incorrect facts. Dont think we can have a third..?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Are you talkng abot the Foley execution. The released video is thought to be fake by experts in the UK. That fact was even reported on the MSN..

See through the propogada machine its all theatrics..

a reply to: Vasa Croe

To think the editorial staff of all major MSM are in on a conspiracy together is what is ridiculous.

No the MSM get fed stories that then report. If they try and report something that is not wanted nationa laws put gagging orders on the them. That is common practice. Free jounrnalism is dead try going against the status quo look what happened to Wikileaks

purp.