J
Joe
Guest
I think he is dead . Staged or not there would be no reason not to kill him . Maybe they lied to him and told him it was to be staged only to kill him in the end . He knew the dangers of being over there .
When the family was contacted by IS to notify them that they had their son, and then gave them proof of life which were 3 questions about himself, couldn't the US intelligence community have been able to determine where the email originated from and who the sender's IP address was or even an actual address.
This is a thread to discuss what happened, not the reasons why.
And what does "false" mean? He's still alive? That's someone else? It's all CG? You don't get to dictate what word mean.
Instead of worrying about the meaning of words, just clearly say what can be verified.
Metabunk doesn't debunk conspiracy theories. They debunk specific claims of evidence.However, without the why, faking a journalist's beheading to build support for the invasion of Syria, unfortunately the debunking loses context.
Metabunk doesn't debunk conspiracy theories. They debunk specific claims of evidence.
IPv4 in general and email in particular is a really insecure system, too. The information in the headers are only as trustworthy as the software that generated it and there's tons of untrustworthy* software out there.Given time perhaps.. running traces like that isnt an instantaneous thing.
US Intelligence is working on authenticating the video which was discovered by SITE Intelligence Group.The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has beheaded Steven J. Sotloff, the second American executed by the Islamic militant group, and posted a video of it on the Internet, the SITE Intelligence Group, a research organization that tracks jihadist web postings, said Tuesday. Mr. Sotloff’s family issued a statement saying it believed he had been killed.
I wonder if there will be CT's to follow proclaiming it was staged, or if this 2nd beheading put the nail in the coffin of the CT's circulating involving James Foley.Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman, said he could not immediately confirm the authenticity of the video showing Mr. Sotloff’s killing. “It is something that will be analyzed very carefully by the U.S. government and our intelligence officials to determine its authenticity,” he told reporters in Washington.
Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said that American intelligence agencies would “work as quickly as possible” to determine whether the video was authentic. She said the United States would be “sickened” by confirmation of Mr. Sotloff’s beheading
As Mick said, MB doesn't debunk conspiracy theories, but rather specific claims of evidence. The original post was a "claim" that the beheading was fake. From what I've read, in not sure that claim was successfully debunked.
Mick,We don't debunk claims, we debunk claims of evidence. What you have there is a theory "the beheading was fake". YOu can't "debunk" that, as the goalposts are always shiftable. However you can debunk specific claims of evidence, like "the panning shot is 2D", which was demonstrably false. Or "jpeg error level analysis indicates the image was altered", which was also demonstrably false.
So please don't bring up broad claims like "CIA trained ISIS". We don't debunk claims, we debunk claims of evidence.
We don't debunk claims, we debunk claims of evidence. What you have there is a theory "the beheading was fake". YOu can't "debunk" that, as the goalposts are always shiftable. However you can debunk specific claims of evidence, like "the panning shot is 2D", which was demonstrably false. Or "jpeg error level analysis indicates the image was altered", which was also demonstrably false.
So please don't bring up broad claims like "CIA trained ISIS". We don't debunk claims, we debunk claims of evidence
So why was this post allowed on your site?
As Mick said, MB doesn't debunk conspiracy theories, but rather specific claims of evidence. The original post was a "claim" that the beheading was fake. From what I've read, in not sure that claim was successfully debunked.
The one that really upsets me is the "theory" that his whole family consists of crisis actors. Leave grieving families alone, conspiracy theorists!
* Rule 1 of Conspiracy Club: You talk (constantly) about Conspiracy ClubAgreed. is there any evidence of them being crisis actors? or is that just a claim spewed out of hatred without hesitation. Im pretty sure, some of the thousand or so people who know them personally would blow a whistle saying "they are actors" or "wait a minute, thats not there name" or even "wait a minute, im their neighbor and they don't have a son." on the news, you know?
Why change that method when sending a direct message to the people you hate the most?
Has anyone come across any evidence that even points to it originating from anywhere in the Levant region or actually tying it to IS?
The location of the Foley execution is supposedly in the hills outside of Raqqa, Syria:Last month the FBI confirmed they knew Jihadi John’s true identity but details have deliberately not been made public while intelligence officers continue to monitor the movements and electronic communication of his alleged helpers...
...Unlike most other western Muslim recruits, Jihadi John has risen to a position of some seniority.
Normally, Western fighters occupy lowly positions.
He is believed to have been a prison guard for IS and has risen to be a member of a shura council, or governing body, of an IS ‘wilayat’, or province.
Jihadi John is aged between 28 and 31, and is fluent in English, Arabic and classical Arabic, the language of the Koran.
He first joined IS in Iraq when he left the UK, but then moved to Syria.
He is said to travel around in a black Audi jeep, and has six other British terrorists with him who act as his bodyguards.
The previous videos of beheadings produced by the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, appeared to be filmed in the same location, identified by analysts using geo-mapping as a bald hill outside Raqqa.
No, not being disingenuous. I didn't watch any of it as to me it was just another beheading. I really don't have any more interest in news of this or that man's death over another one. We kill each other routinely.Because he was a westerner with some public profile, of course it was going to be focused on in the western press.
You must be being disingenuous when you say you can't see why that would get comparatively more attention.
You can't draw moral conclusions that his life must therefore considered to be worth more than the rest - it's just basic human interest to be more concerned over people one recognises or relates to more, hence more coverage, as people can empathise more by thinking, 'he could of been one of my friends or family.'
That doesn't mean the other lives are worth less, they just exist on the other side of a cultural divide.
Because it's something horrifying that is newsworthy and gets public interest.To clarify, what I think is important about the beheading is not whether there was blood or not, etc., but in why it was repeatedly broadcast. And I don't think that "we relate to him" is a good enough explanation.
This thread is odd. It is abundantly obvious that he is dead (by beheading) or as good as dead (an Infidel held captive by vicious Islamic extremists).
There does appear to be editing of the propaganda. But propaganda is always edited. So there is nothing new about that.
The only conspiratorial thing I can pick out of the whole thing is that the media spent so much time on it. They probably spent more time on this one beheading than on the 26 beheadings that Saudi Arabia conducted in broad daylight recently. This editorial choice was also propaganda in my opinion. How was this head any more or less important than the other ones? All of the heads were cut off by Islamic extremists...yet we only focussed on this one. I found this interesting.
What differs dramatically is the coverage that we assign to specific deaths. I believe this value is placed with intent towards driving a given agenda, i.e. that the news media is working towards a specific end in focusing on this and not that. Perhaps we disagree about that. To clarify, what I think is important about the beheading is not whether there was blood or not, etc., but in why it was repeatedly broadcast. And I don't think that "we relate to him" is a good enough explanation.
All one need do is watch a few different broadcasts from other countries. In Canada, on cable, we can see newscasts from Canadian networks, CITY, Global, CTV, or CBC, but also all four USA networks , CNN ( USA version nit CNN World) and MSNBC, plus the BBC. Some days its quite interesting to note the lead stories on each one and note the huge differences in what gets hilighted , or even the same story with differing takes on it....and yet, perhaps the "driven agenda" is simply to cover news - or prioritize news- that is pertinent to their viewers? I find it strange that you find it strange that the Western media would cover the dramatic, brutal murder of a Western media representative that was -as Faithless pointed out- filmed and designed to cause a reaction in the Western media- more than some state executions of criminals in Saudia Arabia. The executioner in the Foley murder spoke directly to the POTUS. Were the Saudi executions filmed? Were they sending a message to the US? Did they address the President of the US?
Its the same reason why the simultaneous beheading of 18 Iraqi soldiers - also filmed by IS- did not make as big an impact on my local news.
Its the same reason why the murder of ~140 school children in Pakistan last week did not make nearly as big of a media impact in the US as the killings at Sandyhook.
Do you think the Pakistani press covered SandyHook as much as the massacre last week?
I would suggest that the media is highly biased towards its constituency.
The Saudi's do not record their executions and put them on the internet as a recruiting tool. ISIS seems to revel in executions, rape and slavery. That makes a major difference in the attention they get from the press.No, not being disingenuous. I didn't watch any of it as to me it was just another beheading. I really don't have any more interest in news of this or that man's death over another one. We kill each other routinely.
What differs dramatically is the coverage that we assign to specific deaths. I believe this value is placed with intent towards driving a given agenda, i.e. that the news media is working towards a specific end in focusing on this and not that. Perhaps we disagree about that. To clarify, what I think is important about the beheading is not whether there was blood or not, etc., but in why it was repeatedly broadcast. And I don't think that "we relate to him" is a good enough explanation.
That's not really the topic though. The topic was the claim that the beheading was staged. Please stay on topic.I found this interesting.