Description

Gareth Porter returns to discuss his important new article, “How the US Armed Terrorists in Syria,” the evidence, former-CIA Director Petraeus pushed the scheme to arm rebels in Syria, leading to the rise of Islamic State and the current war there.

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • I have been reading about and watching the goings on in Iraq this last couple of weeks, with the “terrorist” group ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) turning on Iraq and seizing several Iraqi cities, and I have come up with my own theory of what may really be happening there. For over a year different war mongers and NEO-CONS in Washington (McCain, Graham for instance) have been wanting to arm the rebel factions fighting the Assad regime in Syria with better more sophisticated weapons to help topple the Assad government. This has turned out to be very difficult as it has been found out that several of these groups happen to be known terrorist groups and supposed enemies of America, such as ISIS. It’s not so politically correct these days to want to arm Al-Qaeda, especially if you are an American politician. I suspect that ISIS turned their attention to Iraq under the direction of the U.S. State, with the complicity of the Iraqi government. Why would the General of the Iraqi army leave Mosul just as it was about to be attacked? Why has the Iraqi army, trained by Americans and armed with much more sophisticated arms than ISIS, dropped their weapons and run, in a battle where they had 10-1 superiority in manpower alone, not to mention AH-64’s and Blackhawk helicopters? ISIS has now seized these arms and have in their possession the firepower that they need and which politicians in Washington wanted them to have to assist them in the overthrow of Syria. Not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars they stole from the Iraq banks where they invaded. I have no proof that the U.S. State is behind this, but it seems odd to me that the U.S. has not even launched one airstrike, whoever heard of the U.S. not bombing every chance they get? The goal of ISIS seems to be in line with the goal of the U.S. State, to rid the world of the Syrian and Iraqi State, to split them into three separate provinces consisting of Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish, each with their own province. The NEO-CONS get their wish, to arm the ISIS militants with sophisticated American made arms, to defeat the Assad regime, all the while acting like they are so surprised with the situation. The American people, dolts that they are for the most part, have already fallen for this scheme, watching all the talking heads of the MSM who propagate the Empires lies. I am not saying there is no human suffering involved in this wicked scandal, obviously many hundreds if not thousands more innocent Iraqi people are being killed. Again. But I find it almost impossible to believe the U.S. is not behind the whole thing.    

    Jump to Discussion Post 3 replies
  • @massimomazzone writes: “So, let’s discuss the elephant in the room. A couple of days ago was the anniversary of Oklahoma, was Timothy McVeigh morally justified? I am fed up with this “tactically counter-productive” and other B.S. Was he morally justified? Even if a lot of “dupes” or whatever Spooner called them, were killed, including children? I do not think so, but I would love to see a debate. I grew up in Italy as a Communist Party member when the Red brigades were killing people, personally, I have been vaccinated against violence. What about you guys?” Thoughts?

    Jump to Discussion Post 11 replies
  • As I listen to the radio during the weekday I ask myself, Is there (at present) a media-spun consensus to mutate the term “radical” as only meaning an individual who wants to join the religious extremism of Islamic State in Syria? Therefore making people conclude that “radical means Islamic State extremist” and vice versa? As a consequence, I believe other labels associated with the term may also include: contrarian, gadfly, maverick, rebel, and angry young (wo)man. The final goal, in my opinion, to label all these terms as “terrorist,” thus through the fear of this label bring the potential “radical” or any other term back into the collective instinct for a quiet and obedient statist life. Perhaps Christopher Hitchens was correct when he said in his book Letters to a Young Contrarian: “Radical is a useful and honourable term that comes with various health warnings.” (p.1) Of course we cannot forget Rothbard’s definition of the radical: “Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and antistatism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark.” http://mises.org/library/do-you-hate-state I could be wrong, but perhaps people aren’t being made aware that there are two types of radical. I say this because, again, I use Hitchens book: “Emile Zola could be the pattern for any serious and humanistic radical, because he not only asserted the inalienable rights of the individual, but generalised his assault to encompass the vile role played by clericalism, by racial hatred, by militarism and by the fetishisation of ‘the nation’ and the state.” (p.5)

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • Regarding this video from @akokesh: LiveLeak.com – The Restraint of Muslims (WARNING: GRAPHIC VIOLENCE) | Adam Kokesh I created a LL account for the first time to get involved in the discussions over there. Pretty interesting responses. Everyone there is assuming Adam is a Muslim or a Jew, or claiming he “forgot” 9/11 (when he referenced it in the video), or calling it “bullshit” without substantiation. I’m interested as to the Lme userbase’s response. Please watch the whole thing before commenting.

    Jump to Discussion Post 7 replies
  • Australia has had its first case in ages, of fake cops trying to pull someone over, a woman. Its a very dangerous situation because the only solution suggested by the police is to run from the Police! It also, in this case, may have been terrorist related. One of the incidents that started the balkan war was a set of police attack on Serbs and Muslims by what are now believed to be fake cops. People were attacked by cops claiming to be from the other ethnic group but seem to have been the same people. Agent provocateur’s.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies