ISIS - Who da f*ck are you?

[shickingbrits]

Don't expect you to understand BBS, because you don't want to.

With war, they can demand taxes and spend the money on themselves. That is the main prize. Compared to hundreds of billions annually, all the other stuff is just window dressing. A pipeline? Maybe, but it's nothing more than a spoil. The treasury is being emptied, enjoy the bill. You got nothing for it.

[patches70]

Honestly, I don't buy the pipeline hypothesis. I don't know enough about it to be as confident as patches' is.

That's cool, maybe you have an alternative hypothesis for why the US is so gun-ho to get rid of Assad. Maybe you actually believe the line about humanitarian reasons and spreading democracy? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Anyway, the Qatar-Turkey pipeline is common knowledge.

Qatar as you may know has the largest natgas reserves in the world. US corporations have invested billions of dollars in developing Qatar's natgas production and infrastructure capabilities over the last decade. Previously, Qatar knew they had a butt load of natgas but didn't have the technical expertise or infrastructure to exploit that resource efficiently.

Thanks to those investments Qatar now has that capability and most of the required infrastructure. All that remains is to build the efficient delivery system to get that natgas to desirable markets. I.E. Europe. This makes money for Qatar, gets the ROI for the investing US companies and eases Europe's dependence on Russian natgas. As you can see that's win/win for everybody involved (except the Russians) wouldn't you say?

So that brings us to the Qatar-Turkey pipeline. The line is to run from Qatar, through Saudi Arabia, then Syria and into Turkey to hook up with the already existing Nabucco pipeline. Turkey has already built their end of the line, ready to receive Qatar natgas right now. Syria is the only thorn left.

A quick link for you to read, BBS. It'll get you up to speed for the next part.
http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news ... 60833.html
And if you don't like that one, then you'll sure as hell like this one from the Armed Forces Journal-

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... xwvbknOzuw

There is also the wiki entry, but that doesn't give much information-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... akzUOB-B6Q

but gives enough for us to start going from there. Especially when we combine that tidbit with other views that already published out there.

Now at first Qatar had a deal with Assad, but as the wiki entry states, Assad after consulting with their Russian friends opted out of that deal to "protect the interests of it's Russian ally".

Now, lets get to the nitty gritty, the sectarian aspect. Assad is Alawite which is a branch of Shia and Assad decided instead of helping Qatar and Saudi Arabia (Sunni), they decided to run an eastern pipeline deal with Iran (Shia) and Iraq (effectively Shia now).

Now, Qatar ,who has close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, want MB factions of the Syrian rebels to prevail. I suppose these would be the "moderate" rebels that Obama likes to refer to. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia supports the more extreme Wahabbi factions of the rebels. Wahabbism would be considered "extreme" by us in the west and they are considered extreme even by Sunni and Shia standards. Wahabbi is a sect of Sunni as well.

So you have Assad the Alawite (Shia) against Qatar (Sunni) and Saudi Arabia (Wahabbi Sunni).

Assad has as allies Iran, Russia and Iraq. Qatar and Saudi Arabia have as allies the US and the EU. You can see the EU's reasons for wanting the Qatar-Turkey pipeline to go through, I assume. But frankly I'd think the Europeans wouldn't care either way, the Eastern pipeline through Iran/Iraq/Syria or the Southern pipeline of Qatar/Saudi Arabia/Syria. Both give the same advantage that Europe really needs. An alternative to Russian natgas.

For now the Saudi and Qatar dogs are working together because they have a common goal, the ousting of Assad. Qatar thinks they have a better chance of working with their MB allies to make sure the pipeline not only gets built but also protected. Qatar doesn't really trust the more radical Wahabbi's that the Sauds are backing. It's not a very bad leap of logic for Qatar to think this way, IMO. But first and foremost Assad has to go.

Of course, as soon as Assad goes, the Qatar dogs in this fight will battle the Saud's dogs. But hey, whatever, right?
ISIS as you know are Sunni, they are the most radical and extreme of those who Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been supporting.

Anyway, read those first two links, it's not just me who is making all this up and is saying it's mostly about the pipeline, it's also the US military thinktanks and other geopolitical analysts. And they have access to a whole hell of a lot more information than I have and they come to the same conclusion, Assad has to go if we want the Qatari pipeline to go through.

And of course the US would favor the Qatari/Sunni pipeline over the Iran/Shia pipeline because not only have billions of dollars been invested in Qatar's energy sector by US corporations (who also have the ear of the USG as you well know) but the alternative is energy profits taken by our enemies. Iran. So the US is not only helping those US corporations, but also helping her own allies Qatar and Saudi Arabia while at the same time boxing her enemies in (Iran) and cutting the legs out from under Russia who has a figurative gun to Europe's head, so to speak.

The one thing that is really interesting is the Kurd part. You know if you look at a map one would wonder why Qatar would bother with Syria at all since Turkey shares a border with Iraq. Except that border area is Kurd territory. Oh man, if you wanna get into the surreal, then wait till I tell you about that one! But that's only if you want. For what it's worth, I can totally understand why Qatar and Turkey would want to bypass that seemingly easier route directly to Turkey through Iraq and opt instead for chaos and war in Syria.

But that's another subject I suppose. But related.

[BigBallinStalin]

Don't expect you to understand BBS, because you don't want to.

With war, they can demand taxes and spend the money on themselves. That is the main prize. Compared to hundreds of billions annually, all the other stuff is just window dressing. A pipeline? Maybe, but it's nothing more than a spoil. The treasury is being emptied, enjoy the bill. You got nothing for it.

I agree with some of your conclusions but disagree on your method of reaching those conclusions.

[Pirlo]

Honestly, I don't buy the pipeline hypothesis. I don't know enough about it to be as confident as patches' is.

That's cool, maybe you have an alternative hypothesis for why the US is so gun-ho to get rid of Assad. Maybe you actually believe the line about humanitarian reasons and spreading democracy? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Why can't the pipeline go through Iraq rather than Syria?

A good hypothesis is Israel. It's not a secret that Assad is anti-Israel, and it's not a secret that Assad is the main artery of Hezbullah, or how could Iran deliver weapons? And it's not a secret that Hezbullah is the biggest pain in Israel's ass.. you remember the 2006 war when Condoleezza Rice said it was the birth of a new "Middle East?"

[BigBallinStalin]

Honestly, I don't buy the pipeline hypothesis. I don't know enough about it to be as confident as patches' is.

That's cool, maybe you have an alternative hypothesis for why the US is so gun-ho to get rid of Assad. Maybe you actually believe the line about humanitarian reasons and spreading democracy? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Why can't the pipeline go through Iraq rather than Syria?

A good hypothesis is Israel. It's not a secret that Assad is anti-Israel, and it's not a secret that Assad is the main artery of Hezbullah, or how could Iran deliver weapons? And it's not a secret that Hezbullah is the biggest pain in Israel's ass.. you remember the 2006 war when Condoleezza Rice said it was the birth of a new "Middle East?"

Perhaps because of the Iraqi Kurds and the PKK in Turkey. Maybe because it's too expensive to run a pipeline through Iraqi deserts and then into Turkish mountains?

Then again, why not run it through Iraq and have it connect to this pipeline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Gas_P ... connection

Also:

In September 2004, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon agreed to connect the Arab Gas Pipeline with Iraq's gas grid to allow Iraq to export gas to Europe.[8]

So, instead of arming rebels in Syria, which already has a gas pipeline, why not start from Iraq, connect into it, and export through Israel or Egypt--instead of dealing with Syria?

[Phatscotty]

Honestly, I don't buy the pipeline hypothesis. I don't know enough about it to be as confident as patches' is.

That's cool, maybe you have an alternative hypothesis for why the US is so gun-ho to get rid of Assad. Maybe you actually believe the line about humanitarian reasons and spreading democracy? Yeah, I didn't think so.

I too put a lot of stock into pipelines as a motive. Perhaps not always thee motive, but certainly a big one. Given the era we are entering where the US dollar ultimately fails as the world reserve currency. EVERYONE is exploring completely new dynamics. Another currency WILL replace it, most hopefully one with some gold backing. China and Russia are smart smart about that kind of thing. And not only supply and demand either, someone else is gonna have all kinds of new abilities to say not only how much and where oil/gas goes, but also where it does not go. Cripes, even the kurds of Iraq are getting in on it, shipping oil tankers to whoever wants to buy them. As of now the means of distribution are to get close to the delivery spot, turn off the ships GPS, deliver the oil, and then when the GPS goes back on, the oil is 'mysteriously' missing. I think many other countries are looking to pull off the same transaction in an exponentially more effective and profitable way. There are gonna be Rockefellers all over the world, new oil cartels, new wars to take/keep what they have.

I read quite a few books in this realm, Crude Politics concerning all the details of the trans-afghan pipeline, House of Bush/House of Saud which deals a lot with how they think 'infrastructurally'', and hey, who hasnt seen Fahrenheit 911?

I have always been meaning to reread them see how it all turned out 10 years later, but I can count on 1 finger the number of books I have actually read more than once.

[shickingbrits]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-h ... 01952.html

It's quite amusing how so much of the media is contradicting itself. Huffington Post has within days posted several conflicting articles.

ISIS is small. ISIS is big.

ISIS was sold their victims. The sellers are our friends.

Obama is stopping the problem. He is adding to it.

Huffington is not alone in doing it. If we compare the reports from them to let's say Fox, which is doing the same, we get a beautiful rainbow. Aren't rainbows nice. I wish there was rainbow colored Kool-aid. Oh, I guess there is.

[patches70]

Why can't the pipeline go through Iraq rather than Syria?

BBS gave you the answer to that. There are geography problems and then the biggest problem is the Kurds. The Turks hate the Kurds.
From there it gets even more crazy. Not only do the Turks hate the Kurds, but the Iraq central government isn't too fond of them either. The Kurds have been selling Iraq oil and keeping the proceeds, angering the Iraq central government. The Kurds claim they are allowed to do this legally while the central government says otherwise. It's a really fuzzy subject right now and a source of some angst.

An oil tanker just recently was being held in a Texas port pending a ruling on it's disposition (of which the Texas judge said she had no jurisdiction to rule on the case). Iraq said the tanker was illegally hauling stolen oil. The tanker left port and disappeared from radar last week or so. This has happened before, Kurdish run oil tankers filled with oil disappear and then reappear empty, the oil sold off to someone.

It's a huge mess.
Also, the Kurds receive protection from the US, so Turkey and Iraq can't really crack down on them without pissing off the US. We have to remember, the US didn't react to ISIS at all, even as ISIS was marching to Baghdad until ISIS turned on the Kurds and threatened Erbil. As you may know the US has a State department mission there, and the Kurds even have their own central bank.
During the 2003 invasion of Iraq the US had it's special forces headquarters located at Erbil. In the beginning of ISIS' attack on Iraq, they ignored the Kurds at first. When they began attacking Kurdish territory is when the US started bombing the shit out of ISIS.*

Yeah, hell would freeze over before Turkey would agree to letting a pipeline from anywhere pass through Kurdish territory into Turkey. And the US would definitely get pissed if anyone goes messing with the Kurds too much. As ISIS learned.


*Maybe not so much because the US loves the Kurds, but probably more so that the Obama administration couldn't afford another Benghazi and Erbil is the center of Kurd oil production, international airport and international banking center.

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's what's being overlooked:



Then again, why not run the pipeline through Iraq and have it connect to this pipeline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Gas_P ... connection

Also:

In September 2004, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon agreed to connect the Arab Gas Pipeline with Iraq's gas grid to allow Iraq to export gas to Europe.[8]

So, instead of arming rebels in Syria, which already has a gas pipeline, why not start from Iraq, connect into it, and export through Israel or Egypt--instead of dealing with Syria?

[patches70]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-hoh/isis-iraq-perpetual-war_b_5801952.html

It's quite amusing how so much of the media is contradicting itself. Huffington Post has within days posted several conflicting articles.

ISIS is small. ISIS is big.

ISIS was sold their victims. The sellers are our friends.

Obama is stopping the problem. He is adding to it.

Huffington is not alone in doing it. If we compare the reports from them to let's say Fox, which is doing the same, we get a beautiful rainbow. Aren't rainbows nice. I wish there was rainbow colored Kool-aid. Oh, I guess there is.

The media has to keep contradicting itself because the line doesn't match with the reality, so discrepancies abound.

Hey, it may well be in long term US and EU interests to get this pipeline built. It's just that the case hasn't been made for that at all as to the reasons why the US has to get rid of Assad.

Maybe the Qatar-Turkey pipeline is the right thing to do. But we don't know because that case isn't the case being made for intervention. Maybe if the USG would actually come clean, explain the real reasons why, maybe they could convince the American people of the need for intervention.
Then again, people may be put off on war for the purpose of natgas. People were certainly angry about war for oil.

So instead of opting for some truth the USG goes with deception instead. The truth is a bitter pill, but at least it's the truth.

Peak world oil production has already passed. The writing is on the wall. As the energy resources dwindle there will be wars to control the last little bits. There is pretty much no way around that. It may be better to start fighting now than to wait until then. But we are talking about horrific violence. It's a tough subject to broach politically.
I can understand the need for deception, but usually the truth is better even if the truth is painful.

Until the USG makes the case for why it's better for America to pursue this course, though, I remain unconvinced that this is the best way. The USG will never make that case though, because they won't even acknowledge it in the first place. Thus, debate is avoided and lies are put in place.

I'm not for letting my country be the strongarm for Qatar or Saudi Arabia, two countries which I have nothing but intense disgust with. And they are our allies! I understand the need for them to be our allies at the moment, but just because we are allies doesn't mean we have to go along with their machinations.
All this doesn't benefit the US directly at all. The one's who benefit the most are the Europeans, so as far as I'm concerned it's the Europeans who should be getting their hands all bloody, not our hands.

The sooner we wash our hands of this mess the better it will be for us. And until someone can make the case for why the US should be getting involved in the middle of a sectarian war that's been going on for centuries and why that line is better for us long term, then I ain't buying the lies.
And neither is the majority of the US public. Not that what we think ever makes much difference, but the blowback will come for our actions. It always does.

My country does not exist to be the mercenary arm for Europe. That's not why we were founded and it's not who we are as Americans. Or at least not who we were intended to be by our Founders. IMO.

So I think it's high time someone actually made the case to why we should be and change my mind.

[shickingbrits]

Can't come clean.

Art of War is still relevant. How would you guys like to spend trillions of dollars which we don't have to secure Iraqi oil which Saddam is overproducing and thereby bringing down the cost because our sanctions have resulted in the starvation of 2,000,000 Iraqis including 500,000 children and has forced him to take a stand against his age old ally? Sure oil prices will go up, the petrodollar which was threatened by US policy against Iraq will be resecured and only a few wealthy companies will gain while hundreds of thousands of individuals will be paralyzed, killed, engage in torture, be tortured, etc?

What do you say Merica? Can we have the trillions?

[patches70]

Here's what's being overlooked:



Then again, why not run the pipeline through Iraq and have it connect to this pipeline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Gas_P ... connection

Also:

In September 2004, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon agreed to connect the Arab Gas Pipeline with Iraq's gas grid to allow Iraq to export gas to Europe.[8]

So, instead of arming rebels in Syria, which already has a gas pipeline, why not start from Iraq, connect into it, and export through Israel or Egypt--instead of dealing with Syria?

The problem is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are rivals. Then there are the sectarian divides. The Qatari don't like the Saudi Salfism at all. I don't understand all the nuances very well, but Qatar and Saudi Arabia could easily come to blows with each other one day and it wouldn't be a surprise at all.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... KkWQv37KNQ


and

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... sa8lKc95hw

One of the main sticking points with Saudia Arabia is Qatar's support of the Muslim Brotherhood. also, Al Jazeera which has been and continues to be harsh with it's reporting about Saudia Arabia, is based in Qatar. You know Saudi Arabia's stance on press that is critical of them....

And then there is the pipeline. For a long time Saudi Arabia wouldn't even allow Qatar to build any pipelines through their territory. This stems back to the 1992 border clash between the two nations. Ever since then Saudi Arabia and Qatar's relationship could be summed up as passive aggressive at best.

I am unclear as to what has changed that would allow this particular Qatar-Turkey pipeline and why Saudi Arabia would allow that pipeline to go through their territory. Qatar is always looking for ways around the Saudi restrictions. It's a confused mess. But due to Qatar's support of the Muslim Brotherhood, there is no way no how Egypt would let Qatar run anything through their country.

And why they can't run through Israel doesn't really need any explanation, does it? Sure, in the cold harsh facts of reality, Qatar wouldn't have a problem, but when you've built up Israel as the boogey man for so long as a way to control one's population, then you can't go cooperating with them openly very well, can you?

There may be other stuff afoot in Syria that we don't know about. Qatar and Saudi Arabia may be cooperating there for now but it may be plays against each other as well. One day the US is going to have to pick a side, between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. But that's a decision that doesn't have to be made anytime really soon.

[shickingbrits]

If you give us the trillions we will promise to create perpetual war with it, thereby ensuring the drive of the economy through defense spending.

We will provide you with pictures of us belittling Muslims and give you nice bombings on TV. Occasionally we will reinforce the fear driven economy with small atrocities, but hey it isn't our fault that we don't have a real enemy.

You get pictures and videos, get to feel superior, get to debate. We get your money and the tech to use against you at some later date.

[patches70]

Here's what's being overlooked:



Then again, why not run the pipeline through Iraq and have it connect to this pipeline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Gas_P ... connection

You see that little dotted line, right? It doesn't exist. There is still another 230km of pipeline that has to be built to get through Syria. 230km that Assad refused to allow to be built.

These guys go through all the scenarios-

http://www.globalresearch.ca/its-not-ju ... es/5307589

Qatar is forced to liquefy their natgas and then ship it via tankers. Very inefficient and costly. They need a pipeline.

Natgas is the new silk road and what we are witnessing is a fight about who is going to control this new silk road. That's the deal in a nutshell.

Haha, BBS, if you wanna see something funny, google "pipelines in Saudi Arabia" and look at how all those pipelines go all around Qatar but don't connect. It's hilarious. Those are oil pipelines though. I'm not sure if you can pump natgas and crude in the same line.
Meh, it's a tangled web and those in charge have decided that Syria is the key and that the ends justify the violence.

[GoranZ]

They were not allowed to raise ransom Typical American bureaucracy.

[Phatscotty]

Few have heard of the "Rat Line". An agreement between the CIA, Turkey and the Syrian rebels to transfer weapons and ammo from Libya to Syria. This included anti tank and anti aircraft weapons and the Rat Line is the code name for the covert network to move these weapons clandestinely. The network was funded by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m- ... e-rat-line

Stevens as the Liaison to the Libyan rebels, knew about this Rat line-
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria ... ts-2012-10

or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jriU_cPU9Vk&t=2m18s if you want to get directly to the heart of Hillary's denial and watch the whole thing if you want to see Rand Paul go BOSS mode


almost done going through it all Patch Just had to share this

[Phatscotty]

They were not allowed to raise ransom Typical American bureaucracy.

I'm torn on this one: yes, upon first thought when I heard on the radio that if the family tried to raise ransom they would be charged with a crime by the Federal government, I was all like 'fuckin police state', but on the other hand, what to do about a situation where the kidnappers want to kill the person while making the most horrific murder victim's home country look bad so they blurt out money totals they know they'll never get. I do believe we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists, especially in this situation. That is based on my absolute belief that people from a country that do pay ransoms are far more likely to get kidnapped and even targeted moreso since the kidnappers know for sure their wolf ticket will pay out.

[Phatscotty]

Can't come clean.

Art of War is still relevant. How would you guys like to spend trillions of dollars which we don't have to secure Iraqi oil which Saddam is overproducing and thereby bringing down the cost because our sanctions have resulted in the starvation of 2,000,000 Iraqis including 500,000 children and has forced him to take a stand against his age old ally? Sure oil prices will go up, the petrodollar which was threatened by US policy against Iraq will be resecured and only a few wealthy companies will gain while hundreds of thousands of individuals will be paralyzed, killed, engage in torture, be tortured, etc?

What do you say Merica? Can we have the trillions?

Someone figured out you don't even need to ask, or even be in America to spend the money or send the troops! Obama 'let' Congress, the official Representatives of the People 'know' that we are invading Libya and overthrowing the government while he was in South America.

In 2011 Barack Obama led an allied military intervention in Libya without consulting the US Congress.

[saxitoxin]

Honestly, I don't buy the pipeline hypothesis. I don't know enough about it to be as confident as patches' is.

That's cool, maybe you have an alternative hypothesis for why the US is so gun-ho to get rid of Assad. Maybe you actually believe the line about humanitarian reasons and spreading democracy? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Why can't the pipeline go through Iraq rather than Syria?

A good hypothesis is Israel. It's not a secret that Assad is anti-Israel, and it's not a secret that Assad is the main artery of Hezbullah, or how could Iran deliver weapons? And it's not a secret that Hezbullah is the biggest pain in Israel's ass.. you remember the 2006 war when Condoleezza Rice said it was the birth of a new "Middle East?"

Yeah, Pirlo nailed it. When the Syrian Arab Army used (maybe) the national deterrent against ISIS in 2012 everyone cried "oh the humanity!" and demanded Syria surrender its chemical weapons (that was before the name "ISIS" was being batted around). No one benefited from the disarming of Syria except Israel, which now has no retaliatory challenge to its nuclear stockpile. James Foley sacrificed his life had his life sacrificed for the glory of Israel.

Hassan Nasrallah and Dr. Bashar al-Assad can't lift a finger against Israel as long as they're besieged by the ISIS lunatics. The USA wants to play a balancing act where it keeps ISIS from being too successful, but stops short of completely eliminating it ... if a few Americans lose their heads in the process, well, that's the price of keeping the cabarets open in Tel Aviv. If the U.S. was able to implement an independent foreign policy, instead of having it dictated to it by AIPAC, it would lift the blockade against Syria, lift the chemical weapons restrictions, and stop funding the Syrian "rebels." Within six months the SAA would kill every last ISIS soldier. But USA will never do that because U.S. foreign policy isn't about protecting Americans, it's about protecting Israel. And as soon as the SAA was finished chopping up ISIS it would be ready to free Jerusalem.

Remember, our brother Saif al-Islam warned the west about ISIS before anyone had ever heard the words "ISIS/ISIL": "You people have no idea what you have just unleashed. In one or two years you will understand but do not say - on that day - that Saif al-Islam did not warn you."

They were not allowed to raise ransom Typical American bureaucracy.

I'm torn on this one: yes, upon first thought when I heard on the radio that if the family tried to raise ransom they would be charged with a crime by the Federal government, I was all like 'fuckin police state', but on the other hand, what to do about a situation where the kidnappers want to kill the person while making the most horrific murder victim's home country look bad so they blurt out money totals they know they'll never get. I do believe we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists, especially in this situation. That is based on my absolute belief that people from a country that do pay ransoms are far more likely to get kidnapped and even targeted moreso since the kidnappers know for sure their wolf ticket will pay out.

I agree with Scotty on this; making deposits into the ISIS bank account is the last thing that would be helpful right now.

[Phatscotty]

I LOVE that we have our own organic homegrown material to draw on and reflect upon

[saxitoxin]

I LOVE that we have our own organic homegrown material to draw on and reflect upon

Hillary laughing about the death of the Lion of Africa; unbeknownst to her at the time she would be cruelly celebrating the removal of the last barrier between the west and the thing that had been safely locked up by the Libyan government in Abu Salim prison for the last 40 years.



He was the sentry on the front line; without him there is no possible hope left for the survival of civilization.

[Phatscotty]

I LOVE that we have our own organic homegrown material to draw on and reflect upon

Hillary laughing about the death of the Lion of Africa; unbeknownst to her at the time she would be cruelly celebrating the removal of the last barrier between the west and that thing in the desert that had been safely locked up by the Libyan government in Abu Salim prison for the last 40 years.

HA! I already Inceptioned that one on FaceBook. A couple days ago I posted "Is it ever okay to laugh at/about the death of another human being?" and a bunch of chicks/future Hill-dawg supporters jumped in 'No, NEVER!' 'Is this a serious question?' 'Not in a million years!' with all their touchy feely sensitive stuff, and I let em wring up for a couple days, and then I hit em with the Inception! BOOM!. Hillary Clinton not only falling out of her seat laughing her ass off at the death of another human being, but also piggishly trying to take credit for it. I planted that bitch deep into the recess of their minds, in that secret place in women's mind, a place terrifying to men! And when they go to vote for Hillary in 2016....BOOM! THEY CAN'T DO IT!!!

[GoranZ]

They were not allowed to raise ransom Typical American bureaucracy.

I'm torn on this one: yes, upon first thought when I heard on the radio that if the family tried to raise ransom they would be charged with a crime by the Federal government, I was all like 'fuckin police state', but on the other hand, what to do about a situation where the kidnappers want to kill the person while making the most horrific murder victim's home country look bad so they blurt out money totals they know they'll never get. I do believe we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists, especially in this situation. That is based on my absolute belief that people from a country that do pay ransoms are far more likely to get kidnapped and even targeted moreso since the kidnappers know for sure their wolf ticket will pay out.

I agree with Scotty on this; making deposits into the ISIS bank account is the last thing that would be helpful right now.

Hmmm there are different types of ransom... For example Soviets were paying ransom with heads(including dicks) in similar organization back in 1986, so it is up to the Government on which language they will negotiate.

What happened in 1986 in Lebanon? 4 Soviet diplomats were kidnapped by unknown Islamic Liberation organization. After initial negotiations the body of one of the kidnapped diplomat was found, so KGB took over the "negotiations". They found out that the responsible organization behind the kidnapping is actually Hezbollah, so they kidnap close blood relative of prominent Hezbollah leader, castrated him and send both heads together with list of additional relatives of Hezbollah leaders relatives to the kidnapers. It didn't take much time for Hezbollah to realize it was dealing with a different breed of "Great Satan" so they released the remaining 3 kidnapped diplomats unharmed. Soviet government didn't call a press conference to brag about what bad-asses their boys were, but Hezbollah obviously understood the message.That was also the last time Hezbollah ever messed with any Soviets in Lebanon.

Now if Soviets suffered attack like 9/11 I wonder what would have remained from Bin Laden family now. I let to any reader to imagine the outcome

http://articles.philly.com/1988-02-26/n ... -hezbollah

P.S. Language on which the Government is negotiating is very important... Hezbollah understood the message sent on the language they perfectly understand

[shickingbrits]

Keep up the good work PS.

I think the saddest bit of the interview with his mother is where she was lead to believe she was providing the FBI with information. Debriefing prisoners is routine and her handlers should know that they had the info. Their ongoing relations with her were no more than keeping her in check.

As for negotiating with terrorists, we do it all the time. We negotiated how many weapons to give the Libyan terrorists to overthrow Gaddafi, with the Syrian terrorists, with the Afghan terrorists, the list goes on and on. More than likely we negotiated the best time to behead him.

Anyways, why should I care about innocent people being killed to create demand for private interests?

[Phatscotty]

Keep up the good work PS.

I think the saddest bit of the interview with his mother is where she was lead to believe she was providing the FBI with information. Debriefing prisoners is routine and her handlers should know that they had the info. Their ongoing relations with her were no more than keeping her in check.

As for negotiating with terrorists, we do it all the time. We negotiated how many weapons to give the Libyan terrorists to overthrow Gaddafi, with the Syrian terrorists, with the Afghan terrorists, the list goes on and on. More than likely we negotiated the best time to behead him.

Anyways, why should I care about innocent people being killed to create demand for private interests?

Dang, that is freakishly spooky. Talk about Orwellian...

And yes I'm well aware that we do negotiate with terrorists, but so far only when it's a Muslim being detained/kidnapped! Obama traded 5 Guantanimo prisoners for a traitor named Bergdahl.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... t=bergdahl
That's why I stated I am the one who thinks we shouldn't negotiate. I wish it were true I could truthfully make the claim 'we don't negotiate' but sadly I cannot.