In every case, the moment the knife hits the trachea / carotid artery a huge fountain of blood starts gushing forth. In the Foley video he saws into the neck a good 7-8 times before the fade to black and there’s not 1 drop of blood or a visible scratch. Not even the trickling you’d expect to see from a superficial skin trauma. Nothing. And then they cut to a STILL photo of the allegedly beheaded corpse. Why wouldn’t they show it on video? (answer: because it’s fake) Why wouldn’t they show the actual beheading? (answer: because it’s fake) Terrorist beheading videos are nothing new. They’ve been all the rage for some time now. The point of being a terrorist is to terrorize, and showing the ugly violence is a key component of that.
Like I said I don’t know why they faked it or where this fake video came from, and I never espoused any kind of conspiracy theory. It’s just a bizarre, badly made video and I’m shocked anyone is buying into this crap.
Related question: unless the guy is actually alive, which precisely nobody seems to believe and would make no sense at all in the context of their demands, who gives a flying fuck?
OP, isn’t it bad enough that this happened without you trying to stir up imagined shit? What the fuck is actually wrong with you? The fact that you’re clearly proud of how many beheading videos you’ve watched is just disgusting.
I get your joke but I’d say no. The one thing that doesn’t make sense to me is why fade to black. If your goal is to terrorize folks, then show the grizzly parts. With a good knife (and he had one) I imagine it would be a tough thing to do. Even so, I say Foley’s dead and the guy in the vid did it.
I think the video is probably real (not that I’m an expert or something) but I do think the OP (& others) made some good points, and you never know. (But at the end of the day, this video has been analyzed by experts, who probably thought of all these various points and they think it’s real.)
What I disagree with is your statement that the guy being alive “would make no sense at all in the context of their demands”. I think it could make some sense in the context of their demands, in that they have another hostage and at this particular time they have had their progress impeded by US airstrikes, and would like for the US to back off due to the threat to the next guy. A possible reason for keeping the guy alive is because their original idea was to raise a huge ransom for him (they were asking $135M, per reports) and they may still be looking for a big payoff if things die down and the US backs off, at which point they could begin quietly shopping him again.
[I recently read an article about how a major source of al-Qaeda funding is from ransoms of Europeans. IIRC, the US and Britain alone have a genuine policy of not paying, which has significantly cut down on the number of people getting kidnapped from those countries.]
I checked some other sources and learned some things I didn’t know. Not only is the video clearly a fake, but the person in the video isn’t even Foley. Also, ISIS is a front for the CIA and the Mossad. We produced this video ourselves in order to justify bombing Iraq, because… there’s a step missing there, but I remember that the last one is “PROFIT!” Apparently we couldn’t get Tom Savini, or even a guy with a ketchup squirt bottle, so the production budget must’ve been tight.
That Reddit site is really a great source of information. No offense, but I think I’m going to hang out there from now on.
Their goal is not just general terrorism. They have political/religious goals they wish to achieve. Among the tools they use to achieve their goals is terror*. That doesn’t mean it’s the only tool they use or that it has to be the best tool to use every time or even that the specific goal of the video in their larger strategy was to instill terror. People aren’t so easily pigeonholed into stereotypes.
They judged the video they released served their goals the best.
OK, just so I’m perfectly clear on your position, they didn’t actually kill Foley, so that way they can make another tape later, in which the narrator says “You know that American hostage we killed last time? Well, now we’re going to kill him again!” Am I right?
Yes, that’s basically it as I understand it. Because faking the murder of this man serves their purposes.
The obvious conclusion being that they didn’t fake murder him, we did! So we can go back into Iraq! Which we have been totally itching to do! In fact, all of ISIS/ISIL? Fake! Fakefakefakityfake!
No people hanging out on mountains, no other beheadings, no girl sex slave thingy, no mass butchery!
It’s all fake. It’s the only thing that makes sense. In crazyland.
I’m very much inclined to agree, Bounder, but with this one niggling caveat: these people are barking mad, they sincerely and unreservedly believe that God Almighty smiles down on them as they murder and terrorize the innocent.
Brings to mind the line in Apocalypse Now, where Dennis Hopper’s character describes Col. Kurtz as being clear in his mind, but his soul has gone insane.
It goes deeper. Iraq secretly joined the USA as the 53rd state (51, 52, and 54-67 are secrets for another day) back in 1982. The whole place has just been used as a training ground for our military since then, as well as a dumping ground for excess military ordinance and vehicles. You know how expensive the war has been? Well, it costs a lot to hire all those extras.
Damn. Damn damn damn. Rigamarole called me a pussy. Shit. Well, he called most of us pussies. That might include me, but then again, it might not. Damn. I mean, if there is one thing that I really don’t care for, it is being called a pussy. But what if I wasn’t included? Then either I’m not a pussy, or Rigamarole, at least, doesn’t think I’m a pussy. Damn, I tell ya. What a pickle.
I’m not following. They threatened to kill him, and the U.S. refused to pay the ransom and stop the bombings in response to that threat. How does pretending to kill him make sense?