Further Evidence That ISIS Was Not Behind the Paris Attacks

Standard

Here is another article that says ISIS claimed responsibility, but then gives very specific information that ISIS likely was not responsible:

“Terror groups, when they claim credit for attacks, will sometimes include details of the planning or execution that establish the group was indeed responsible. There are none here; the statement details nothing that was not publicly available information from news reports. It also includes no biographical information on the attackers, even a name or photo, though terror groups will often lionize its attackers as “martyrs” in such statements.”

(via http://www.vox.com/2015/11/14/9734794/isis-claim-paris-statement)

The following statement implies ISIS did not claim responsibility by implying they might still claim it later:

“None of this is to argue that ISIS is thus not responsible; it is entirely possible the group may later release more information to establish its role.”

Islam: Religion of Violence

Standard

A delusion is something that people believe in despite a total lack of evidence. 
-Richard Dawkins

It takes a certain level of intellectual sophistication to look at the world through a lens of reason rather than give into prejudice that serves only to convenience an undiscriminating mind.  As of late, New Atheism and its proponents (Harris, Dawkins, Maher and the following they’ve amassed for themselves) have come under heavy fire for what is perceived as “knee-jerk anti-Muslim bigotry.” Such criticism likely stems from the media’s oversight of the general public’s emotional vulnerability to isolated scenes of violence directed towards Muslims.  This has been exacerbated by what can only be described as ultra-left-wing sentimentalists—many stemming from Hollywood’s spare-time-“intellectuals”—who have abandoned reason and hard evidence for misguided notions that blind sympathy for all “others” necessarily equates to virtuous liberal sensibility.  One must temper impulse with reason and take a solid look at truths we don’t always want to acknowledge.  As the following article illustrates, evidence and reason would lead a rational mind to conclude that Islam, exceptional among Abrahamic religions, naturally incites violence within its followers:

Why Terrorists Attack so Often: Believers Abandon Reason, Science and Evidence

One continues muddled in the grimy depths of ignorance without taking a clear look at Islam’s brimming track-record of being the single common denominator in acts of terror and extremism throughout history:

For centuries during its prominence, Muslims have posed a serious threat to the Roman Empire and terrorism stemming from Islamic tribes, requiring the need for exorbitant Roman military expenditure, is cited as a contributor to the once all-powerful empire’s decline.

In fact, one can see documentation of raids by rogue Muslim seafarers on Eastern Mediterranean empires as far back as the mid-14th century BCE.  As with Rome, the number of Muslim groups that banded together to carry out these attacks increased consistently until the collapse of Bronze Age civilization within the region altogether.

And nobody can deny the extreme threat Islamic nomads from the North posed to ancient Chinese dynasties, requiring countless man-hours, resources—even human lives—to constantly build, rebuild and repair thousand-kilometre stretches of defensive barrier.

Thus, recent science and evidence alongside countless documented examples throughout history points to a single conclusion which I’ll let the critical mind of a rational reader reach for itself.

ISIS: A Political and Economic Diversion Tactic

Standard

[T]he system was one that made the elite very rich and the poor even poorer as their debts increased. Increasing numbers of people started to leave the cities to escape their debts, and often joined rogue groups known as the [H]abiru in Syria and the Levant, which not only maintained a way of life free from the control of the major kings, but which also raided their cities and supplies.

via Kingdoms of Anatolia – Sea Peoples.

Did the Sea People cause the Late Bronze Age collapse, or was it merely a case that elitists were pathologically using them as a diversion tactic to blind people to the horrendous inequality of the period? Were Mongols from the North the true reason the Great Wall of China was built, or was that a way to keep people busy so nobody had time to question the injustice of the ruling class and those serving it?

The situation in the West (and, in particular, the United States) is one where people are mainly just looking out for their own interests at this point (even at the expense of the nation itself.)  Those working in news/media need a story to cover and a constant “war on terror” allows for just that.  The rich want to divert attention away from themselves.  Others serving the war-machine want to maintain their roles, even if the wars serve no real benefit to the invading nation.  Conservatives are wired to naturally serve oppressors.  Phoney-liberals are wired to do the same (but pretend that they don’t.)

As the lesser of evils, it would be far better for the West to train/supply regional resistance forces that are naturally going to do battle with ISIS anyway.  However, honest people would need to keep a VERY close eye on the situation to make sure the state is doing what it says it’s doing (because half the time it will do the exact opposite.  NATO kept urging Turkey to fight ISIS, yet it ended up using its opportunity for “humanitarian” intervention to bomb the state enemy, the Kurds, instead. However, Turkish elites and media outlets most likely announced that they were intervening to defend Turkey from the threat of ISIS.)

However, the best way to deal with terrorism would actually be to deal with the extreme inequality in wealth (along with sinister forms of academic elitism that try to keep the general populace stupid while praising sinister notions of what it means to be “educated.”)

Less wealth inequality allows more honest individuals to speak out against all forms of hypocritical elitist behaviour in society including those in media, academia, politics, business etc. who try to keep the general populace vapid and uninformed.  Had the populace been less deluded and had there been greater opportunity for dissent in the years leading up to the Iraq war, it may have never happened in the first place, meaning ISIS wouldn’t even exist right now.

Aside

Who is this person who cares so much about the lives of foreigners that they oppose limited interventionism by Western states?  Who is this person who cares so much about the lives of Third World peoples that they want to unleash the violence and brutality of Western military states onto those people to save them?

Find me the person who cares so much about the lives of non-Westerners that they want to use Western Imperialism to liberate such peoples and I’ll show that all you’ve done is ferret out a shameless, villainous LIAR.

The Daily Servant of Power

Standard

Today’s servant of power is:

Thomas L. Friedman

Friedman is an American journalist, columnist and author who currently writes a twice-weekly column for The New York Times. [1]


Political views:

  • Support and justification provided for the Iraq war (I was unsure of my stance on war during the invasion, but I was also only in High School at the time.)
  • Support for economic imperialism and subservience to corporations by developing nations cloaked in the “what’s best for them”-mentality [2]
  • Servicing the economy of the developed world by scolding developing nations and independent opposition movements for getting in the way of mindless growth and expansion [3]
  • Desire for energy independence only because it allows for greater leverage in international relations
  • Defence of Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon as a form of “educating” Israel’s opponents [1]

Journalistic Tactics:


Rewards granted for subservience to unethical power structures:

  • Triple Pulitzer Prize wins
  • His entire career

As a servant of power only concerned with his own lot, what does he care whether others are ruled by authoritarian regimes or not? (·Outside of it being inconvenient for corporate expansion and domination, that is.)

References:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman
[2] “One of Friedman’s theses states that individual countries must sacrifice some degree of economic sovereignty to global institutions (such as capital markets and multinational corporations), a situation he has termed the “golden straitjacket”.” via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Is_Flat

Nobel Prize for Noam Chomsky

Standard

Why is it that those who contribute to nothing but war, terrorism, and bloodshed get Nobel Peace Prizes, but a true dissident like Noam Chomsky, who has proven time and time again that he is one of the only honest intellectuals (amongst the big-name intellectuals that is) left, goes unnoticed and unrecognized?

Yes, part of being a true dissident is that you do it despite the recognition, and sometimes in the face of more sinister forms of recognition, but I think that now is the time to right previous wrongs.  It’s pretty clear now who has been contributing to terror and who has been opposing it.


The Nobel Peace Prize committee has pretty much been pandering to the very vapid and unenlightened Western liberal mindset that wants to pretend that the West is genuinely level-headed and, thus, needs to act as the global policeman.  This is why they gave the prize to Barack Obama and Liu Xiaobo, in my opinion.

It’s a type of Western liberal PR tactic.


People who have contributed to nothing but war, violence and bloodshed:

Number of Nobel Peace Prizes shared amongst them: 3


Those who stood up against Western and Israeli terror while all other intellectuals were whitewashing the crimes:

Number of Nobel Peace Prizes shared amongst them: 0

The Daily Servant of Power

Standard

Today’s servant of power is:

Michio Kaku

Michio Kaku showed the type of person he is on his futurism discussion (which I watched on Youtube.)  He was discussing type 1, 2 and 3 civilizations.  He said we are transitioning from a type 0 to type 1 civilization which is by far the most difficult transition.  I don’t disagree with him on this point.

However, he stated that the largest barrier to our transition is terrorism stemming from Middle Easterners.  This to me is laughable.

Ann Coulter got it right (and it’s why Noam Chomsky states that US conservatives are often more perceptively consistent than US liberals) when she stated that compared to the Nazi war machine which the US had to face, the terrorists are nothing.  And she’s right.  These are scattered groups from second and third world nations with low-quality technology and training and these are humanity’s biggest threat?