Beheadings: False Flag or For Real?


Okay, way out on a limb here, but this has been on my mind for some time now.   Is it possible,  just possible, that the three beheadings of two Americans and now a Brit, were “false flag” operations, intended to get the U.S. and Britain more involved in the fight against ISIS?

It could be nothing more than another example of the barbarism the ISIS Army represents, although this latest spate of senseless butchery began at a somewhat critical juncture for events in the Middle East, and there are several countries who undoubtedly feel a need for an increased presence by the U.S., Britain, France and other western nations.

We were nearly at a point of feeling as though a political solution might be preferable, and possibly the only sane alternative to ramping up yet another war in the region, and then the beheadings began.

Britain in particular, now appears to be fully entangled in any fight going forward, with Prime Minister David Cameron vowing to “hunt down the killers of this British hero.”  Prior to the beheading of David Haines, they seemed hesitant to become involved in the ISIS affair.

It’s been suggested that the beheadings were intended to be a recruiting tool, drawing more fighters to ISIS.  However, on balance, inviting the wrath of the west would seem to be far less productive than whatever ISIS has been doing all along to bring new members into its bloodthirsty fold?

Was Mr. Obama correct in pushing the U.S. into yet another war in the Middle East, or did he simply take the bait and has Mr. Cameron now followed suit?   And might the trap have been set by one of our allies in the region?   Are the leaders of ISIS really all that eager for their movement to be annihilated?    In the eyes of the west,  they may be crazy, but it appears to be a carefully calculated craziness designed to acquire more power rather than inviting elimination.   But maybe not.  Religious fanaticism is what it is.

As distasteful as this is for those of us in the west, beheadings are commonplace in some Arab nations like Saudi Arabia,  where there was more than one beheading a day in the first three weeks of August, for crimes ranging from drug smuggling to “sorcery.”   For those with the contacts and money, paying off rouge fighters to carry out two or three more for the sake of publicity would probably be a relatively simple task.

As both President Obama and Mr. Cameron are now steadily beating the drums of war, it is perhaps important to remember that President George H.W. (Daddy) Bush first took us into this sectarian mash-up in August of 1990, with “Operation Desert Shield.”  The goal was to protect Saudi Arabia (and their oil), from a possible invasion by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Ties between the Bush family and the Saudi Royal Family are so well publicized as to be approaching infamy.   CBS News reported in April of 2004 that “The relationship peaked under the presidency of George H.W. Bush. This is both due to personal and financial ties, but moreover because the Saudi royal family supported (was even grateful) for the first Iraqi war, when the United States ousted Iraqi troops from Kuwait.   Both then-president Bush and the current president have had personal and deep financial ties with the Saudi royal family. Author and journalist Craig Unger documents $1.4 billion that has “made its way” from the Saudi royal family to “entities tied” to the Bush family, according to Unger’s controversial book “House of Bush, House of Saud.”

It was, some speculate,  Operation Desert Shield, a move requested by the Saudis, who asked for a U.S. military presence on their “holy ground” that prompted Al Qaeda, to launch attacks against the United States on 9-11.  Fifteen of the nineteen attackers on 9-11 were Saudis.  Their leader, Osama bin Laden, was a Saudi.

So, under George H.W. Bush,  we sent in our troops to protect the Saudis and their oil.  Then, when his son, George W. Bush is president, 15 Saudis, hijack our jets and fly them into buildings filled with innocent civilians for reasons dealing not with anything the western mind might understand, but purely because of religious dogma – because the Saudis, and on a broader scale, the Arabs, cannot agree with one another on what their religious dogma represents.  It’s a centuries old holy war.  Can we really be so arrogant as to believe we can fix it?   Regardless of how tight the Bush family might be with the House of Saud?

The British tried to take command of the region and failed.  The Soviets marched into Afghanistan and failed.  And now we’ve been stuck in this ungodly mess for 24 years with no resolution in sight and Cameron and Obama are committed to begin another major air offensive based upon three beheadings?

Isn’t that the way it always starts?  With another air-offensive?  And the longer our fight in the Middle East and North Africa continues, the greater the potential becomes for another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.  Violence begets violence.  The more we bomb their roads and villages with the inevitable “collateral damage,” killing their women, children and old people, the more determined they will become to strike back, either overseas or on U.S. soil.

We saved the people on the mountain top and are now arming the Kurds and promoting a representative government in Baghdad, which will probably turn out to be another pipe dream.  It’s time now to stop pretending we can fix this centuries old dispute and just get the hell out.

Even if the west destroys the ISIS Army, there will continue to be Sunni supporters of ISIS scattered throughout the region.   The sectarian disputes will remain and the only winners will be the arms manufacturers and other war profiteers.

Apparently President Reagan or perhaps those in his cabinet understood this, as they pulled our troops out of Lebanon, following the 1983 barracks bombing in Beirut, which killed 299 American and French troops.  An “obscure group calling itself “Islamic Jihad” claimed responsibility for the bombing.   Mr. Reagan, did not put together a coalition of the willing to try and march back in to kill them all and democratize the Middle East.

This requires a political and not a military solution.  It has for centuries.   Nevertheless, the United States has inserted itself into the fight and continues to try and solve nearly every problem with a military response for two principle reasons.  One is for our leaders to cover themselves politically.  The other is to protect Arab oil and their business partners, the multi-national oil companies.


2 thoughts on “Beheadings: False Flag or For Real?”

  1. A very thoughtful article. My opinion about negotiating with an organization that doesn’t recognize the most basic rights or rules is nearly impossible, and I understand US and UK’s theory of trying to behead the dragon before it grows bigger and strikes. What we’re dealing with is tyrany, pure madness. I believe the US should have entered WWII sooner and the UN made a grave mistake not recognizing Palistine as a state. What we do or don’t do now may have huge impact on the world’s future and it’s religious freedom and stability. I, too, would rather see negotiation instead of military engagement, but negotiating with madness is madness.

  2. Ron, you are right. Obama and Cameron have “taken the bait,” as you say. No question Americans and a Brit were chosen as beheading victims because of U.S. and British involvements in Middle East oil. And we have to ask, Who benefits with Western involvement in the Caliphate War across Syria and Iraq? The Saudis, for sure.

    Problem is, any U.S. president has to take action to defend Americans overseas — which drags us into war after war. The “hidden hand” in all these regional, tribal and religious conflicts across the Arab world is Big Oil.

    As long as the American economy is dependent on oil products to sustain us all, we will have to continue our engagement with the Muslim civil war between Sunni and Shia, a conflict that began when Mohamed died. He had no sons. An uncle and a nephew each claimed to be the heir to leadership of the religion, each got a following, and within a year the followers of the uncle had assassinated the nephew, and the nephew’s followers had assassinated the uncle. The beginnings of Sunni and Shia. Two competing branches of the religion, both born in warfare with the other. THIS WILL NOT END IN OUR LIFETIMES, AND THE MUSLIM WORLD WILL CONTINUE TO BE AT WAR WITH ITSELF AND EVERYTHING AROUND IT.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.