• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

ISIS and Israel

Free episodes:

What is coming through loud and clear - from the interview done by Charlie Rose and the interview of the King of Jordan, and the bit from Bill Maher (very insightful imo) - is that the Iraqi War was a mistake of monumental proportions - if that was ever in doubt. From that alone we have a world in a mess.

I also listened to this and it suddenly struck me that we are potentially looking at WWIII on the border of NATO allies in the east with Russia. That - and the Middle East in flames, with the Arab states going into solidarity to fight ISIS, with Israel sitting there - what a powder keg.

Susan Rice on Trusting Putin: "How Dumb Do I Look?" (Feb. 25, 2015) | Charlie Rose
TEXT: "Published on Feb 25, 2015: National Security Advisor Susan Rice talks to Charlie Rose about the situation in Russia and Ukraine, noting that "One cannot accept Vladimir Putin at his word because his actions have belied his words repeatedly, particularly in the context of Ukraine." She also reiterated Washington's "sacred, solemn commitment" to support its NATO allies."
 
Last edited:
Interesting stuff. But this idea of conspiracy - could it not work in unfortunate ways to undermine honest efforts?

BTW - what do you make of the video I linked to? Legit? Not staged?

I'm not sure if I know what you mean by legit or staged, I think it's a bonafide broadcast. As far as his talking point I'm not sure if there is much to be made of it. Let's take the non conspiracy route and agree at the very least ISIS is a byproduct of US intervention not so much a US invention, I don't think I would make too much of it. So far the organization has managed to get as far as it has arguable more on intimidation more than any military prowess. The narrative would indicate that ISIS got to where it is mostly by overrunning places whose local militias seem to suffer from low moral, little equipment and questionable loyalties. From what I heard the Kurds who are most definitely not any of the above took them on and more than held their own. At this point the last thing imho ISIS would want to do is take on a whole nation I think tactic wise it would be better for them to establish their little caliphate before taking on a real state. Besides they read the papers. they are well aware of western fears about they reintroduction of foreign combatants into their respective countries. They don't have to wage a symmetrical war on the west when they got people willing to do it asymmetrically.

I guess what I'm thinking is that I share the same suspicions as the interviewee does, but i don't know if I would publicly use those reasons he gave as there could be very good reasons why the Israelis and ISIS hasn't gone at each other yet that has nothing to do with ISIS being funded by the US or Israel.
 
Last edited:
Trouble is now its gone on to long, you have a mix of 2 generations of home grown, best scenario is they get radicalised and leave the country to fight abroad, and get their heads blown off, even if not, they still will never get back into the country.

But thats the thing, they dont need to get back in, in person, they are recruiting by social media live sorta in action, on a daily basis back to their home community.

Its gone to far now, short of internment camps i dont see a solution for home grown terrorism.
 
@flipper However, some of this doesn't jive. For example, Obama refusing to name ISIS as Muslim terrorists, and King Abdullah's (Jordan) 'take' on not wanting to link ISIS to Islam. Of course, she covers that by saying that there can be two different strategies (Kurds). It starts to get complicated, starts to look like theories and facts in free-float, hooking up when suits the spin.

All interesting. Learning. The economic angle perks the ears but potentially a false cause-and-effect. Not convinced. Doesn't hang together imo. Need more hard evidence, not just clever spin.
 
Last edited:
@flipper However, some of this doesn't jive...It starts to get complicated, starts to look like theories and facts in free-float, hooking up when suits the spin.

Which is why I don't tread into these waters that much. Every time you scratch the surface of something there is another layer to get through. I think the most logical reasoning is to suggest that there is a number of outside influences involved and because in some areas these outside influences have conflicting interests they are not on the same page and maybe not even aware that each other is involved that deeply. If ISIS is just another terrorist group and not a western construct they could even be playing all sides against each other and getting support at the same time, sort of like the Dutchy of Grand Fenwick getting the Russians and Americans to pay for their hot water plumbing. The Great Game is still being played out with frenemies involved.
 
What I find strange is that no one seems to ask the obvious question... who is funding these terrorists? Some countries with deep pockets have to be supplying money, arms and material. Who might that be?

If you search up on the term 'the hornet's nest,' you begin to understand what is going on. Pull all the terrorists into one area. Israel now has an enemy on their doorstep that needs to be fought.
 
@flipper However, some of this doesn't jive. For example, Obama refusing to name ISIS as Muslim terrorists, and King Abdullah's (Jordan) 'take' on not wanting to link ISIS to Islam. Of course, she covers that by saying that there can be two different strategies (Kurds). It starts to get complicated, starts to look like theories and facts in free-float, hooking up when suits the spin.

All interesting. Learning. The economic angle perks the ears but potentially a false cause-and-effect. Not convinced. Doesn't hang together imo. Need more hard evidence, not just clever spin.
I have listened and read Sibel Edmonds for a long time. I do not believe that she would put a spin on anything any more than you would. I would invite you to watch videos and read her blogg and then decide if she is being dishonest by putting, "theories and facts in free-float, hooking up when suits the spin." I realize here I am digressing but you are looking for credibility.
Interview 993 – Sibel Edmonds on Gladio B and the Paris Shooting : The Corbett Report
If NATO would kill civilians in NATO countries who would they not kill or what would they not do? This is interview with an academic who did his research from documents. Again it is off topic.
The Mind Renewed

Our guest this week is Swiss historian Dr. Daniele Ganser, author of the seminal book NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe, who joins us for a fascinating (though at times unsettling) conversation on the subject of Operation GLADIO.

Shortly after WWII a Europe-wide network of secret armies was organised under the aegis of NATO, tasked with providing military and intelligence resistance in the event of a feared Soviet invasion. Modelled on the resistance movements of the war years, many of these "stay behind" units remained faithful to their original mandate. But by the early 1960s - under the pressures of anti-communist politicking and flirtations with the Far Right - some of these groups began to morph into something more sinister, linking up with extreme right-wingers who carried out acts of false-flag terrorism, harassment of left-wing parties and coups d'état.

But was this morphing simply an unforseen consequence of the unaccountability and instability of the network itself? Or was it, at least in part, engineered by the very Anglo-American establishment which gave birth to the project in the first place? And to what extent, therefore, can such acts of terror be seen as manifestations of 'the strategy of tension', carried out by the State against its own citizens for the purposes of control at home and geopolitical gain abroad? (We also discuss: Operation Northwoods, the so-called War on Terror, 9/11 and the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks.)
TMR 097 : Dr. Daniele Ganser : NATO's Secret Armies - GLADIO & The Strategy of Tension
 
There is a lot going on on-line with fundamentalist Christian groups talking about ISIS and the apocalypse. We've got religion driving a lot of this. :(

What ISIS Really Wants:
The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.
Graeme WoodMARCH 2015
LINK: What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic

Its a long read, 5 pages in the version i read


What ISIS Really Wants

But imo its the best summation of the situation we have thus far.


The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.
Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, "the Prophetic methodology," which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn't actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We'll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State's intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal.



Which begs the question

If Islam is violent, why are so many Muslims peaceful?

The answer is here another long read but well worth the time if you want to know the reality we face

Islam 101

This question is a bit like asking, “If Christianity teaches humility, tolerance, and forgiveness, why are so many Christians arrogant, intolerant, and vindictive?” The answer in both cases is obvious: in any religion or ideology there will be many who profess, but do not practice, its tenets. Just as it is often easier for a Christian to hit back, play holier-than-thou, or disdain others, so it is often easier for a Muslim to stay at home rather than embark on jihad. Hypocrites are everywhere.
Furthermore, there are also people who do not really understand their own faith and so act outside of its prescribed boundaries. In Islam, there are likely many Muslims who do not really understand their religion thanks to the importance of reciting the Quran in Arabic but not having to understand it. It is the words and sounds of the Quran that attract Allah’s merciful attention rather than Quranic knowledge on the part of the supplicant.


According to Haykel, the ranks of the Islamic State are deeply infused with religious vigor. Koranic quotations are ubiquitous. "Even the foot soldiers spout this stuff constantly," Haykel said. "They mug for their cameras and repeat their basic doctrines in formulaic fashion, and they do it all the time." He regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. "People want to absolve Islam," he said. "It's this 'Islam is a religion of peace' mantra. As if there is such a thing as 'Islam'! It's what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts." Those texts are shared by all Sunni Muslims, not just the Islamic State. "And these guys have just as much legitimacy as anyone else."
All Muslims acknowledge that Muhammad's earliest conquests were not tidy affairs, and that the laws of war passed down in the Koran and in the narrations of the Prophet's rule were calibrated to fit a turbulent and violent time. In Haykel's estimation, the fighters of the Islamic State are authentic throwbacks to early Islam and are faithfully reproducing its norms of war. This behavior includes a number of practices that modern Muslims tend to prefer not to acknowledge as integral to their sacred texts. "Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are not something that freakish [jihadists] are cherry-picking from the medieval tradition," Haykel said. Islamic State fighters "are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day."

Leaders of the Islamic State have taken emulation of Muhammad as strict duty, and have revived traditions that have been dormant for hundreds of years. "What's striking about them is not just the literalism, but also the seriousness with which they read these texts


Baghdadi spoke at length of the importance of the caliphate in his Mosul sermon. He said that to revive the institution of the caliphate—which had not functioned except in name for about 1,000 years—was a communal obligation. He and his loyalists had "hastened to declare the caliphate and place an imam" at its head, he said. "This is a duty upon the Muslims—a duty that has been lost for centuries … The Muslims sin by losing it, and they must always seek to establish it."


simply denouncing the Islamic State as un-Islamic can be counterproductive, especially if those who hear the message have read the holy texts and seen the endorsement of many of the caliphate's practices written plainly within them.
Muslims can say that slavery is not legitimate now, and that crucifixion is wrong at this historical juncture. Many say precisely this. But they cannot condemn slavery or crucifixion outright without contradicting the Koran and the example of the Prophet. "The only principled ground that the Islamic State's opponents could take is to say that certain core texts and traditional teachings of Islam are no longer valid," Bernard Haykel says. That really would be an act of apostasy.


We can argue the circumstances that created ISIS ad infinitum, But these are oitside observations and frankly deflect from the real problem.

Go inside the caliphate and ask its members and they will tell you Allah created ISIS. What we believe is moot, its what they believe thats going to bite us on the arse if we dont address it. They believe Allah has decided the time is now to establish the (global) caliphate as per koranic prophecy.

WE may not wish to be at war with these people, but they feel 100 percent the opposite, we are Kuffir, enemies of islam and they are at war with us.
 
The fighters of the Islamic State are authentic throwbacks to early Islam and are faithfully reproducing its norms of war. This behavior includes a number of practices that modern Muslims tend to prefer not to acknowledge as integral to their sacred texts. "Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are not something that freakish [jihadists] are cherry-picking from the medieval tradition," Haykel said. Islamic State fighters "are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day."

Leaders of the Islamic State have taken emulation of Muhammad as strict duty, and have revived traditions that have been dormant for hundreds of years. "What's striking about them is not just the literalism, but also the seriousness with which they read these texts




“Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.” Koran 2:191
“Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.” Koran 9:123
“When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them.” Koran 9:5
“Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.” Koran 3:85
“The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them.”… Koran 9:30
“Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam” Koran 5:33
“Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies.” Koran 22:19
“The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.” Koran 8:65
“Muslims must not take the infidels as friends.” Koran 3:28
“Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an.” Koran 8:12
“Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.” Koran 8:60


So the formula is pretty simple from their POV, and its why they have no problem at all with beheading and crucifying and burning alive unbelievers.

They consider themselves to be authentic, true to the doctrines as established in the Koran.

And if they do establish a global caliphate which is their goal, your choices are laid out clearly. Convert or Die.

WE can argue over who created them, THEY have no such confusion, Allah created them, the koranic prophecy of a global caliphate is here and now from their pov, How that will effect you if it comes to pass has already been demonstrated. Expect nothing less than the barbarity weve seen thus far.


Denying the holiness of the Koran or the prophecies of Muhammad is straightforward apostasy. But Zarqawi and the state he spawned take the position that many other acts can remove a Muslim from Islam. These include, in certain cases, selling alcohol or drugs, wearing Western clothes or shaving one's beard, voting in an election—even for a Muslim candidate—and being lax about calling other people apostates. Being a Shiite, as most Iraqi Arabs are, meets the standard as well, because the Islamic State regards Shiism as innovation, and to innovate on the Koran is to deny its initial perfection. (The Islamic State claims that common Shiite practices, such as worship at the graves of imams and public self-flagellation, have no basis in the Koran or in the example of the Prophet.) That means roughly 200 million Shia are marked for death. So too are the heads of state of every Muslim country, who have elevated man-made law above Sharia by running for office or enforcing laws not made by God.
Following takfiri doctrine, the Islamic State is committed to purifying the world by killing vast numbers of people. The lack of objective reporting from its territory makes the true extent of the slaughter unknowable, but social-media posts from the region suggest that individual executions happen more or less continually, and mass executions every few weeks.
 
I really do not know enough to even start accusing any country/state of creating IS. But one thing I do know that still troubles me, and has great bearing on whether groups like Al Queda were 'created' is the fact that the way the op that finally got Bin Laden went down.

Often in war there are ops done, for a certain goal, that are so important, quite large losses are figured in and accepted because the end goal is judged to be worth it. Case in point, not warning Atlantic shipping of U-boat attacks because it would reveal the Enigma code had been cracked.

Considering Bin Laden was the head of AQ, supposedly behind 9/11 and various embassy bombings, amongst many others and the fact that he would be an intelligence goldmine of the 1st order, it simply beggars belief that a SEAL team would not be tasked with taking him alive, even at great cost - the thinking being that even losing some men would be outweighed by the lives saved by the intel possible to extract from Bin Laden.

There are a number of ways the op could have been tried in an effort to take him alive and it seems none of those was tried. But what was also so strange was this burial at sea rubbish. Since when do captured suspects (dead ones) get rapidly buried at sea in such a rapid manner? It stinks to high heaven!

Don't get me started on why does nobody in power want the JFK case reopened when it is obvious even to the village idiot there are huge problems with the case, not to mention an official finding of 'a conspiracy'? We often mention Bill Clinton wanting info on UFOs and JFK but we only really hear why the UFO part did not happen. I don't remember hearing him say why he didn't get anywhere on JFK?

I have to think that if such things are going on in the USA, they have to be happening here in the UK too. We are way too close politically and militarily for each side to be totally in the dark about such huge subjects in the other side surely?
 
I really do not know enough to even start accusing any country/state of creating IS. But one thing I do know that still troubles me, and has great bearing on whether groups like Al Queda were 'created' is the fact that the way the op that finally got Bin Laden went down.

Often in war there are ops done, for a certain goal, that are so important, quite large losses are figured in and accepted because the end goal is judged to be worth it. Case in point, not warning Atlantic shipping of U-boat attacks because it would reveal the Enigma code had been cracked.

Considering Bin Laden was the head of AQ, supposedly behind 9/11 and various embassy bombings, amongst many others and the fact that he would be an intelligence goldmine of the 1st order, it simply beggars belief that a SEAL team would not be tasked with taking him alive, even at great cost - the thinking being that even losing some men would be outweighed by the lives saved by the intel possible to extract from Bin Laden.

There are a number of ways the op could have been tried in an effort to take him alive and it seems none of those was tried. But what was also so strange was this burial at sea rubbish. Since when do captured suspects (dead ones) get rapidly buried at sea in such a rapid manner? It stinks to high heaven!

Don't get me started on why does nobody in power want the JFK case reopened when it is obvious even to the village idiot there are huge problems with the case, not to mention an official finding of 'a conspiracy'? We often mention Bill Clinton wanting info on UFOs and JFK but we only really hear why the UFO part did not happen. I don't remember hearing him say why he didn't get anywhere on JFK?

I have to think that if such things are going on in the USA, they have to be happening here in the UK too. We are way too close politically and militarily for each side to be totally in the dark about such huge subjects in the other side surely?

I can only speculate of course.

In the first instance his getting killed may simply have been because as the official account goes they thought he had a weapon and was going to shoot back.

Capturing him alive even were it possible has its own problems. For as long as there was any hope of securing his release , there would have been attempts made by his supporters to secure it.


on 27 June, an Air France plane with 248 passengers was hijacked by a hijacker of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – External Operations (PFLP-EO) under orders of Wadie Haddad, who had earlier broken away from the mainstream PFLP of George Habash.[7] The PFLP-EO hijackers consisted of two Palestinians and two members of the German Revolutionary Cells. The hijackers had the stated objective to free 40 Palestinian and pro-Palestinian militants imprisoned in Israel and 13 prisoners in four other countries in exchange for the hostages


Operation Entebbe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aircraft hijacking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Indeed even were he captured alive the official story would of a certainty have to be he was killed. the body buried at sea prevents this being tested for veracity.

Admitting we had him locked up somewhere would have invited a string of attempts to force his release
 
Vicious cycle

The group regularly disseminates propaganda across social media accounts through its various media arms, including guides for women on how to be good jihadi brides.
Ayesha said she was taught to see the UK as a "kuffar [non-Muslim] nation" that had killed many Muslims and was "our enemy".
"You don't trust the state, you don't trust the police, you don't send your children to state schools,” she said.
The extremists she associated with would have idolised the British fighter ‘Jihadi John’, who was recently unmasked in reports as Mohammed Emwazi, and considered him a role model, Ayesha added.


'Attractive' jihadists used as 'eye candy to recruit British girls into extremist groups'

So you dont send your kids to state schools so they cant learn otherwise, that is that non muslims cant be trusted and are the enemy.
 
Of course one conspiracy direction regarding Bin Laden could be that he was taken alive and is still being interrogated. We only have an account and a photo to go by and it seems that the person who took JFK's autopsy photos later stated his were not the ones shown in public. So if that was being done with a President of the USA in 1963, a terrorist in the modern age with photoshop....:rolleyes:
 
Of course one conspiracy direction regarding Bin Laden could be that he was taken alive and is still being interrogated. We only have an account and a photo to go by and it seems that the person who took JFK's autopsy photos later stated his were not the ones shown in public. So if that was being done with a President of the USA in 1963, a terrorist in the modern age with photoshop....:rolleyes:
Goggs, you forgot the granddaddy of conspiracy theories. Bin Laden supposedly died of kidney failure in 2001. All these years we have been spoofed...
 
Back
Top