+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Deep-Politics-Forum)
+--- Forum: Propaganda (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Propaganda)
+--- Thread: PBS (Frontline) airs "The Secret History of ISIS" (aka "Daesh") on 5.17.16, link (/Thread-PBS-Frontline-airs-The-Secret-History-of-ISIS-aka-Daesh-on-5-17-16-link)
PBS (Frontline) airs "The Secret History of ISIS" (aka "Daesh") on 5.17.16, link - Drew Phipps - 18-05-2016
PBS (Frontline) aired "The Secret History of ISIS" (aka "Daesh") last night. It is available for online viewing here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-secret-history-of-isis/
The hour-long story contains interviews with some very central players. It is mostly the CIA's point of view on how its intelligence on ISIS was treated by, first, the Bush crowd, and then Obama, so obviously, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. However, I believe there are some interesting revelations.
Edit: I couldn't decide whether or not to put this under the "Geo. Hotspots" heading or the "Propaganda" heading (Probably it needs a good fact-checking to be sure). Watch it for yourself and let me know if you agree that this is the proper heading.
PBS (Frontline) airs "The Secret History of ISIS" (aka "Daesh") on 5.17.16, link - Peter Lemkin - 18-05-2016
It is certainly worth watching. I found some parts I don't agree with the spin on...but that was to be expected. They are mostly interviewing CIA, Military, State Dept, and other such persons, and takes an 'official version' investigative journalistic look into the matter...but it does have its good points, especially if you know something of the background of the events and personalities mentioned from a 'non-official' viewpoint. Even via the 'official version' we created 'the monster'....as we did in the 'non-official version', if by some other levers and motives. They didn't dwell much on it, but it hints that we totally fucked up in Iraq....beyond the fact we had no reason to ever invade.....once we invaded we destroyed the country, set it on a course of ethnic division and fomented [if not encouraged] terrorist groups inside and outside with our actions and as a reaction to what we did. Even some of the groups we formed as 'ours' turned against us. It is the usual mess when America invades to bring Liberty and Freedom...we do neither - in fact the opposite; and we continue this long tradition. I can't think of one American invasion or government overthrow that didn't make the country and its people much worse in the short run and in the long run. Now, the Blowback is getting quite strong from centuries of this - and a more aggressive approach since WWII and again an upstep of pace with the False-Flag 9-11-01. We have certainly, along with the British and our other European friends, kept the Middle East off balance and in a constant state of chaos, death, wars, divisions and more.......ISIS is just the latest Frankenstein to emerge from a long line of such created in one form or another out of colonialism, outside control and meddling. We certainly are 'exceptional'.
PBS (Frontline) airs "The Secret History of ISIS" (aka "Daesh") on 5.17.16, link - Michael Barwell - 19-05-2016
Pretty much related to this - the threat of a Mumbai/Paris in Brit, and the recently reported "fewer armed cops in Brit now, than in 1987", there was this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006th08/episodes/downloads - on Radio4 t'other day :
"Police Firepower - File on 4 Police forces in England and Wales are to get an additional fifteen hundred firearms officers to help protect the public from terrorism and organised crime.
Most of the new officers will be trained within the next two years after the Prime Minister, David Cameron, set aside £143m to boost the country's armed response capability.
But is it enough to meet the challenges they face?
The number of firearms officers fell from nearly seven thousand in 2009/10 to under six thousand in 2013/14.
And, despite the extra funding, the Police Federation is concerned the new firearms teams will have to come from existing staff. They say that will deplete the number of officers available for other duties.
BBC Home Affairs Correspondent Danny Shaw investigates - and he examines growing unease at the way in which those who discharge their weapons are dealt with.
Concern has been highlighted by the suspension and arrest of the officer suspected of shooting dead Jermaine Baker in Wood Green in December.
Police representatives tell the programme that while they expect their actions to be investigated, people will not come forward to train as firearms officers if they believe they will be treated like a criminal who fires an illegal weapon.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission acknowledges that firearms officers work in challenging circumstances but maintains that police shootings resulting in death or serious injury should be independently investigated.
So, can the system for holding them to account be improved?
Reporter: Danny Shaw Producer: Ian Muir-Cochrane."
Thing is, as I tuned-in at c.15mins in, there was a fella on there, obviously ex-military, talking about how semi-auto police firearms aren't sufficient (paraphrase) "to win the weight-of-fire firefight"; what he was saying, is that it's necessary for armed cops to have full-auto military-spec weaps, (para-) "& if 4 or 5 civilians are killed to take-down the shooter, if 100-150 lives are saved, then that's ok", partly on the basis, it seemed, that "I've been under 7.62mm automatic machine-gun fire, & I can tell you, it's not very nice".
There was a distinct 'flava' of his having brought the army-in-his-head with him into the new role (police/govt advisor) with him. Struck me as being very 'I'm a self-indulgent hardman who paranoia projects"-type. I've never heard that sort of 'bold' speaking in Brit before & it struck that it was not being given sufficient attention, but that it might be a 'nice' 'tell'/reflection on the militarisation of civic policing.