The insane conspiracy theories of Naomi Wolf

[cali]

Author and former Democratic political consultant Naomi Wolf published a series of Facebook posts on Saturday in which she questioned the veracity of the ISIS videos showing the murders and beheadings of two Americans and two Britons, strongly implying that the videos had been staged by the US government and that the victims and their parents were actors.

Wolf published a separate Facebook post, also on Saturday, suggesting that the US was sending troops to West Africa not to assist with Ebola treatment but to bring Ebola back to the US to justify a military takeover of American society. She also suggested that the Scottish independence referendum, in which Scots voted to remain in the United Kingdom, had been faked.

Wild-eyed conspiracy theories are common on Facebook. You may naturally wonder, then, why you are reading about these ones. Partly it's because Wolf's posts on ISIS deeply offended many people who knew one or more of the four murdered Westerners whom Wolf accused of being actors. And as American victims James Foley and Steven Sotloff were journalists, their outraged friends included a number of fellow journalists, so you may have seen them discussing Wolf's posts online and wondered what had happened.

<snip>

This culminated in a now-deleted post, reproduced below, suggesting that the ISIS beheading videos had been staged, as had the initial abductions of the two American journalists and two British aid workers killed on camera. She hints that she believes this was done by the US military.

Like many other journalists who cover the Middle East, I had previously met both murdered American journalist James Foley and his parents (in my case, in 2011) and can attest, although I deeply regret that it is necessary to do so, that they are not actors.

<snip and much more>

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/5/6909837/naomi-wolf-isis-ebola-scotland-conspiracy-theories

[Cooley Hurd]

1. I agree with the author's assessment:

From the same article:

<snip>
Wolf's record of respectability gives her a platform and helps advance her conspiracy theories further than they would travel otherwise. This is not to argue that all of Wolf's earlier work must be discarded on the basis of these Facebook posts, but rather to urge others to see the broader context of Wolf and her thinking. In other words, it is important for readers who may encounter Wolf's ideas to understand the distinction between her earlier work, which rose on its merits, and her newer conspiracy theories, which are unhinged, damaging, and dangerous.

[geek tragedy]

2. puts her looney-tunes claim that the Obama administration coordinated the OWS crackdown in its

proper perspective. Some of us knew she was barking at the moon when she wrote that crap, just like she's full of crap now.

Wolf is a full-blown infowars style loon.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. But other than evidence, you got *nothing*

Admit it.

And love Big Brother already, dammit!

[Scuba]

45. Snort.

[geek tragedy]

77. There is no evidence. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

79. These are not the droids you are looking for. nt

[geek tragedy]

82. No one cites to actual evidence when peddling that

ODS nonsense. They link to people on the Internet claiming it is true.

[starroute]

43. But she was being weird and self-promoting in other ways around OWS

I'm thinking specifically about the incident where she managed to get herself arrested for standing on the sidewalk and then wrote the whole thing up for HuffPo:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/19/naomi-wolf-arrest-occupy-wall-street

Suddenly she was out there knowing better than the people who were actually doing the protesting, taking over the spotlight, and making it all about her. My recollection is that there was an initial wave of sympathy, but that in the long run she didn't come off looking good.

[Scuba]

92. My brief googling did not turn up multiple, reliable sources for this claim. I'll delete my posts.

Thanks for the scoop.

[geek tragedy]

93. Cheers. nt

[sabrina 1]

114. See my post below, you were correct, the attacks on OWS were coordinated at a Federal

Level which was revealed in the docs obtained, though heavily redacted, through the FOIA.

Lots of very credible sources published reports on those documents. And what was revealed is simply shameful.

[sabrina 1]

113. Wrong, FOIA documents proved the Federal Coordination against OWS from the beginning.

Did you miss the extraction of those documents through the FOIA, and they did have to be extracted. And despite the heavy redactions (what are they HIDING there) it is clear that the FBI coordinated with HMS designating those peaceful protests as a 'terror threat' despite acknowledging they were nothing of the kind.

It seems we have to keep on posting the facts every time this comes up.

The FBI V Secret Docs

.... the documents, as you stated, show that the FBI and American intelligence agencies were monitoring and reporting on Occupy Wall Street before the first tent even went up in Zuccotti Park. The documents that we have been able to obtain show the FBI communicating with the New York Stock Exchange in August of 2011 about the upcoming Occupy demonstrations, about plans for the protests. It shows them meeting with or communicating with private businesses. And throughout the materials, there is repeated evidence of the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, American intelligence agencies really working as a private intelligence arm for corporations, for Wall Street, for the banks, for the very entities that people were rising up to protest against.

The FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION/FBI, that's FEDERAL again, just to emphasize that we know that the attacks on OWS were coordinated at a FEDERAL Level with coordination between the FBI, the NYSE, wow, DHS, Local Police, Private Security, local Politicians to their shame, many of them Dems, and we know from the Mayor of Oakland herself, that she coordinated with the mayors of 18 other cities. Not to mention the militarized NYPD which became known, thanks to his own words, as 'Bloomberg's Army'.

And all this to try to shut the people up, to deprive them of their 1st Amendment rights and all to protect WALL ST.

And worse, they treated these American citizens as TERRORISTS, using COUNTER TERROR tactics against them. That of course we saw thanks to the foresight of the organizers in ensuring that everything was video taped.

Please stop denying the facts, they are far to easy to access.

[Scuba]

115. Thanks. Sorry I didn't find this earlier.

[starroute]

91. Agreed -- but it's Wolf's inserting herself into the issue that's the problem

Plus, of course, the fact that her more extreme conspiracy theories could discredit everything else she says. She's really not the sort of person you want taking your side.

[EX500rider]

99. WHAT!?!?!?!?! How can that....that's a regular greek tragedy I tell you! lol

(the real greek tragedy, not your user name)

[GoneFishin]

23. It has been established that federal resources were used and that the banks were involved

in the planning.

So that makes your claims the looney-tunes claims.

[geek tragedy]

67. It has been claimed by conspiracy peddlers, not

'established'

[sabrina 1]

116. Wrong, again. FOIA documents have proven the Federal Coordination to crackdown on OWS.

See my post #113 addressed to you above. We KNOW there was Federal Coordination now, no point in denying that anymore.

[Egnever]

127. Silly CT nonsense

Did you actually look at the documents or just buy into the CT theories spawned from them. I didn't read all of them but the 50 pages I did read were all tame informational pages regarding what to expect and what threats had been posted online by the more lunatic fringe of OWS. I stopped reading because after 50 pages of it it was pretty clear this was standard threat assessment stuff that the FBI should be doing on any large scale protests.

This is not some big conspiracy to treat OWS as a terrorist organization but normal monitoring of large scale protests that can spiral out of control.

The idea this is some attempt to treat OWS as a terrorist organization is tinfoil hat nonsense based on the papers you almost linked to.

Just in case anyone is actually interested in reading these oh so condemning documents

http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files-ows.html#documents

[sabrina 1]

129. Maybe you should have read more of them. There is no question that the attacks on OWS were Federally

Coordinated. None! Even without the documents, there was evidence of that coordination, but the documents put to rest any doubt about it once and for all.

And there are more. What are they trying so desperately to hide? If they had nothing to hide they would simply release, unredacted EVERYTHING. We're not talking about National Security issues here, we're talking about American citizens peacefully using their 1st Amendment rights. You can't have it both ways, can you? If there is no Federal coordination, then there is no reason to try to hide the documents, and definitely no reason to REDACT every other sentence.

The Documents show that OWS was 'handled' under the Counter Terrorism laws. You really should do a little more reading. You missed that part obviously.

I'll take the word of the LAWYERS who have read every one of them, over some anonymous person on the internet. Plus my own reading.

It was shameful. So shameful the UN Rappateur of Human Rights tried to intervene to protect those peaceful protesters but was IGNORED by the US Government.

No one on a forum like this should be trying to defend the destruction of the people's Constitutional rights. The evidence is OVERWHELMING, both in the documents so far, and right there on the streets. And from the mouth of the Mayor of Oakland.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

47. Federal assets and the financial sector both crushed OWS. This has already

been found to be fact. So, what's looney-tunes about the OWS crackdown?

[snooper2]

48. No, it got cold and people had to go to school...

no staying power...

[ChisolmTrailDem]

52. OK, so mass hysteria is responsible for these images...gotcha...

https://www.google.com/search?q=police+occupy+movement&client=firefox-a&hs=Rlp&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=6JwyVIPMA5CGyATT5YDIAg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg&biw=1147&bih=549

There were PLENTY of OWS protestors prepared for the cold and for the long haul.

[snooper2]

54. If there were plenty where did they go? Police did crack down hard in some cities,

other cities not so much-

MIC CHECK, Where We go! Why we here again? OCCUPY! Okay, MIC CHECK, What We Want? OCCUPY! lol

[ChisolmTrailDem]

56. Lame.

You used to be reasonable. What happened that made you change?

[snooper2]

57. Occupy should have had top three things to force the conversation

To the masses, it was just a bunch of people camping out pissed about....banks or something-

I think it could have accomplished something but ended up being a wasted effort-

[Hissyspit]

60. Just mocking without knowing what you are talking about, hunh?

[Hissyspit]

61. 1.) That's not true. 2.) It's not what people are talking about.

[karynnj]

89. True and I think the biggest problem is that there were intentionally no leaders and no end date

This meant that while the initial impact was great and brought on issue that I had heard eloquently discussed in Senate speeches - Kerry, Kennedy etc on the ever greater inequality between the haves and have nots - that got almost no attention, to the forefront and gave it major coverage.

Because there were no "leaders", the message then had to be perpetuated by progressive politicians. For some progressive Democrats - including Elizabeth Warren a major campaign issue. When President Obama spoke of it as well, it clearly became a party defining issue. So, the issue gained mainstream acceptance, but it was without the movement, which had melted away.

Had, the establishment, led by the President, been able to actually make changes, this would have led to Occupy genuinely being one of the most successful, powerful movemnets of our lifetime. However, NOTHING has changed and it continues to get worse. This is likely not because these politicians did not really care, but the fact that only changes in spending and/or changes in tax policy can really make that change -- and that requires Congress to pass something that does this. That obviously will not happen. (Obama is doing small things in the margin that can be done - such as going after illegally sheltered money of the wealthy.)

This suggests that we now need the emotion and power the movement provided to demand change. If someone like Warren, Bernie Sanders or Sherrod Brown ran, it is possible that their campaign would lead with this as the major goal and with that movement behind them. It could be that Bernie Sanders now might be playing the role of Senator Gene McCarthy - demonstrating that there is enough power in this issue to power a more viable candidate.

[GoneFishin]

100. Yeah. They could not weather the blizzard of cops in riot gear. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

106. ^^^^ This ^^^^

[sabrina 1]

130. Really? To say you are wrong is not really necessary for anyone who knows the facts. So I won't

bother. You haven't kept up with them either, have you? They are very much here to stay. The encampments were only the first step in this Social Justice Movement. AND they were intended to last only about one week in ONE CITY. Then they intended to move to the next phase, but the country responded so immediately to their message that it rapidly spread from coast to coast, a surprise to the original Occupiers.

The crackdown was instant and brutal AND federally coordinated, obvious even without the release of the FOIA obtained documents. In spite of that, the encampments lasted way longer than they organizers originally intended, or maybe BECAUSE of it.

Iow, OWS' initial goals were fairly limited, what happened was a spectacular success, above anything they imagined or intended.

They changed the conversation, brought national attention to the corrupt influence of Wall St on every day life and on elections, in this country.

They are still working around the country and the world, to continue what they started. It will take years, it took years to build the corrupt system. But OWS took the first step and I can't imagine why anyone who railed against the Bush admins would not be fully supportive of what this movement, still in its infancy but off to a great start, is all about.

[geek tragedy]

68. It has been claimed as fact by people on the Internet.

Big difference.

[OneGrassRoot]

3. Damn, what's with so many people losing it like this?

I have so many liberal friends who, over the last five years or so, have veered off into uber-conspiracy territory, similar to what Wolf is reported to have been saying recently.

The right-wing libertarians and left-wing libertarian types have merged into an indistinguishable group.

I don't understand. It's seems like a new mental disorder triggered, nurtured and propagated by 24/7 news and social media or something. They share things from blatant conspiracy theory sites -- only -- as if it is now all legitimate, verified news.

I say this as a self-proclaimed conspiracy theorist myself, fully aware of the horrors and injustices and manipulations behind the scenes, and right in front of us. I just haven't gone off the cliff with it.

[geek tragedy]

4. you can trace it back to the Clinton administration where conspiracy theories got play in much

of 'mainstream' Republican circles, the trend went bipartisan with 9/11, and now there's that bipartisan community of people who trust their own imaginations moreso than they do any available facts or simple rules of logic.

Combine that with a deep suspicion of the journalism outlets that borders itself on conspiracy theories "the only reason they're not running with this is that they're part of the leftwing/corporate conspiracy to silence the truth.

people don't want to accept mundane explanations and a certain degree of causal uncertainty for horrible news

[adirondacker]

6. Just an FYI, This is Wolf, Not Klein. Two different Naomi's. nt

[OneGrassRoot]

7. Thanks, I fixed that. I do that a lot with those two, unfortunately. :( n/t

[ellenfl]

101. thanks for the clarification. i was picturing klein. eom

[ChisolmTrailDem]

50. I think you answered your own question:

"I don't understand. It's seems like a new mental disorder triggered, nurtured and propagated by 24/7 news and social media or something."

On the other hand, perhaps it's all a huge sociological experiment by our government to desensitize us when the real thing happens?

[karynnj]

98. The internet, wonderful as we know it is, may be one factor in this

It allows people to find people who agree with them on things where they might otherwise have found no one in real life who agrees. Within these groups, it is easy to move gradually to become more extreme and more cynical. This is no just easy, but it is rewarded. This happens with the backing of that self defined group which will pride itself on being more informed, more willing to seek the truth and certainly not willing to condone any "evil" because the President is from their "side'.

Note that all of these things - being informed, seeking truth and not being willing to accept from people you side with things you would condemn from the Republicans - are exactly what most of us would define as excellent values.

However, the danger of group think can lead people to accept shaky sources that agree with them and reject sources that disagree - even if they are primary source records! (ie Obama's birth certificate or John Kerry's navy record - both of which the far right still dispute.) Couple that with a group of people all doing the same -- informed can become misinformed pretty easily. (It is easier to see this looking at the extreme we are furthest from --- consider the constant Rush Limbaugh et al claim that Obama voters are the "low information" voters, who did not benefit from the wisdom of listening to RW radio for hours a day. )

Please do not read this as refusing to accept anything that is not from an Obama press release. It IS important to press for more transparency -- and Obama has not been anywhere near perfect on this. However, it does bother me when the fact that the Bush administration lied is then used as PROOF that we should assume Obama is lying. Not to mention, at times, I feel that we are back in 2004 when Kerry's team proved a large number of things said by the SBVT were lies, yet other claims continued to be entertained - and the official record was given none of the weight it deserved.

[OneGrassRoot]

103. I think you're correct, karynnj...

The group-think aspect that the Internet provides -- not to mention the seemingly endless amount of content to appeal to any group (based in fact or not) -- allows for proliferation of such views.

Mentioning Limbaugh brings it home, and it's a great example of how conspiracy platforms find left and right-wingers uniting.

Alex Jones comes to mind as someone who brings both factions together via conspiracies.

[blkmusclmachine]

5. The following nastiness was a "conspiracy," too, until recently declassified documents came to light

Operation Northwoods

U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans included hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public into supporting a war to oust Cuba's leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

[cali]

8. Look, just because one can find instances where there were actual conspiracies

doesn't mean every nutso CT is true. Discernment is an important element. There is zero comparison to Operation Northwoods. Do you see the differences? In order to pull off what Wolf is claiming, you'd have to have hired actors decades ago. There is no doubt that, for instance, that the Foleys are real people who have lived for a very long time in NH. There are scores of people who testify that they knew Foley. There is a record of his articles. Same goes for the others.

I think folks who believe this have more than one screw lose. There is overwhelming evidence that supports that these men were killed.

[CJCRANE]

9. Maybe Naomi Wolf is part of the conspiracy

to discredit conspiracy theories.

[loudsue]

10. Homo Sapien Sapien coexisted with Homo Sapien Idaltu who coexisted w/ Neanderthal for a time.

Now we have newly evolving souls coexisting with homo sapien sapien. It's a new world. It seems to make a whole bunch of people act out in one way or another because nothing looks like what their brains are prepared to grasp.

That's my theory on why folks are having reality melt-downs.

[sufrommich]

12. I read about this yesterday,I had no idea she

had gone off the deep end. Yikes.

[AngryAmish]

13. As The King says, nuttier than a squirrel's turd

[MannyGoldstein]

14. These guys wouldn't lie to us:

And those newborns really were thrown to the ground from their incubators by Saddam's men.

And those Patriot missiles really did hit Scuds.

And there really were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, so hundreds of thousands of people really had to die. Shockanawe!

And Goldman Sachs really did need to be paid 100 cents on the dollar when AIG imploded.

And Social Security really does need to be cut.

And...

Why would anyone question the sudden emergence of a grass-roots movement, straight out of central casting, that takes over much of a heavily country in weeks? And gives our government an excuse to do all kinds of stuff, from arming Syrian rebels to extending the AUMF against TERRA! TERRA!?

I'll tell you who would question such a thing: only crazy people.

And our friends in the media will make sure that Americans know they are crazy.

Regards,

#%^*-Glenn-Greenwald Manny

[cali]

19. Your post and others in that vein, flat out disgust me. Do you have a clue how callous you are?

vile.

and your post is dishonest as fuck, manny old boy. You conflate so much shit. forget that you're conflating Obama with bushco. Forget that you're bringing totally unrelated stuff about banksters into your post. You're entirely rejecting reality. These were real people and they really dead and their families are really suffering. There is, quite simply, a shitload of evidence to that effect. This isn't anything like the baby incubator crap which hinged entirely on the testimony of one person who was the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the U.S.

Our opinions on issues may align more times than not, but who we arrive there is completely different. I've never been your biggest fan. Your one note, one dimensional ops are wearisome, but yeah, this is crazy shit and none too swift at that.

[MannyGoldstein]

22. *I'm* conflating Obama and Bushco?

Pop quizz:

1. Under which previous president did Clapper and Brennan serve as high political appointees?

2. What was Clapper's role in getting us into the Iraq war, which killed hundreds of thousands of people?

3. What was Brennan's role in war crimes?

And *I'm* the awful one for conflating the administrations?

Wow.

And bringing up the fact that our government has a long, colorful and murderous history of fabrication in order to do stuff that it wants to do... that disgusts you? I guess I was callous when Clapper and company said there was no doubt that Saddam had all sorts of fantastical weaponry, and I thought it was BS. Or was that different' and those bad people are gone and won't harm is again?

Wow.

Well you go ahead and believe whatever the important people tell you, or whichever random bits you choose to believe.

[cali]

25. yes. you are doing just that. take your red herrings

no, Brennan and Clapper don't mean that Obama=Bushco.

and you know goddamn well that I sure as shit don't believe what "important people" tell me. I actually think critically, manny. so thanks for more of your patented dishonesty.

I'd like to lock you in a room with the parents of James Foley or the Kassigs- only I wouldn't ever subject them to you if I did have that power.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/05/parents-of-u-s-aid-worker-send-an-impassioned-plea-to-his-isis-captors-let-our-son-go/

[MannyGoldstein]

26. For how long have you known them and their parents?

I didn't realize that you personally knew them, sorry.

For the record, I think they were real people. But at this point, given the decades of lies, and the continued employment of the liars in the highest parts of government, I'll not attack those who question what we're told.

As to your theory that the same aweful people will behave differently under a new president... no.

[geek tragedy]

33. One has to personally know people to object to conspiracy loons treating their tragic loss

as an excuse to engage in masturbatory, insane conspiracy mongering?

Or are you questioning whether they have murdered?

[MannyGoldstein]

37. Personally? I think they were murdered.

But there's a tremendous amount of questionable stuff around this episode, and I wouldn't dismiss anyone who questions it as a kook.

Unlike you, I don't have the power to know when Clapper and company are lying us into war, and when they're not. And unlike you, I think that bad actors continue to be bad actors when they have a new boss. And unlike you, if I were on a jury and it was established that a witness has a history of lying to suit their personal ends, I'd consider that witness's testimony to be untrustworthy.

And I don't hurl vile insults at you because I disagree with you, either.

[snooper2]

49. Michael Weiner Savage agress with you

[geek tragedy]

70. So you would refuse to criticize those who claim Clapper

orchestrated the Sandy Hook massacre as part of a global conspiracy to disarm American patriots?

Clapper is not the story, but rather an excuse for people to advance and defend lunacy.

[msanthrope]

119. You Better Believe It! nt

[geek tragedy]

29. This post is not Greenwald Manny, it's Infowars/rense.com Manny.

You might as well defend Birtherism at this point, if you're going to say that because one person lied, that means every insane conspiracy theory is credible

[MannyGoldstein]

34. So Clapper doesn't have a history of lying

in a way that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths?

That's what you're claiming?

[geek tragedy]

36. no, it's a red herring used to obfuscate the current subject

and defend the indefensible

[MannyGoldstein]

38. So Clapper and company lied *last* time,

but we should believe them *this* time.

Good thinking.

[geek tragedy]

69. This story has nothing to do with Clapper.

It's about reporters who were murdered by ISIS. Clapper has nothing to do with this. There is no link other than your interjecting him into the conversation. The story does not depend on any way on Clapper's credibility.

You are defending the leftwing version of Sandy Hook Truthers. Very revealing.

[MannyGoldstein]

78. Where do you think Clapper - and by extension our government -

would draw the line at lying?

As usual, you're engaging in reducio ad absudum when comparing the ISIS stuff to the birthers and Sandy Hook truthers.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. No, Manny, Wolf really is in the same category as Sandy Hook truthers

and you should face up to that, and what you're defending. People who knew the victims know it's them on the videos being executed. They knew they had been kidnapped. You are trying to give credibility to someone who really is on a level with Sandy Hook truthers. Sadly, you're just flushing your own credibility down the toilet, as a result.

Trying to defend your mistakes by shouting 'Clapper' louder and louder isn't convincing anyone. Stop digging this hole, Manny.

[geek tragedy]

81. They are not relevant to this story.

You might as well invoke Clapper to explain how the Patriots losing by 27 to the Chiefs and winning against the Bengals by 26 is a government conspiracy.

You are employing a logical fallacy to defend exactly the same grade of sewage as Sandy Hook Trutherism. Do not complain when this is accurately pointed out.

[cali]

83. There is no way that lie could be promulgated. It would involve

literally thousands of people being complicit over decades- long before Clapper had any power at all.

[NCTraveler]

88. What do you mean it isn't about Clapper!!!!!!

Is it about Benghazi? Hold on.....Wait.....That's right, they save the Benghazi remarks for the other board they are on. So for now it's CLAPPER!!!!!!

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. That's a horribly American-centric point of view

You have to make everything about the USA, don't you? There's a world out there, Manny, and it doesn't care that much about you.

You have inspired me to update my DU signature.

[smiley]

16. I haven't heard about Naomi's thoughts on the beheadings

But I watched the videos of the be-headings (up until the actual event). And my initial assumptions were that these were actors reading from a script. Just my opinion and I have no evidence to back this assumption up. For the most part I've kept this opinion to myself out of fear of being called a loon. Maybe I am, but I honestly don't see how ISIS benefits from these be-headings. I see the MIC gaining greater value from the horrendous events.

[sufrommich]

18. Are the grieving parents and spouses part of the act?

Frankly, people pushing this nonsense are no better than the Sandy Hook truthers.

[cali]

20. and there's only a fucking shitload of evidence that these were real people

with real families.

I'm so weary of stupid sick shit.

btw, no one here has posted more critically of the decision to bomb ISIS in Syria or Iraq than I.

[CJCRANE]

28. I can't shake the feeling that these events

are choreographed as to the timing.

IMO David Cameron is playing the Tony Blair role this time, that of the neocon "generational war" salesman.

He is very convincing, but full of promises that never materialize.

[geek tragedy]

31. You were right to keep this to yourself. Suggesting that the victims are part of a fraud

is not only loony, but callous and insulting and amounts to gravedancing.

[CJCRANE]

35. What is your opinion of "the Jersey Girls"?

Were they right to ask questions and force the set up of the 9/11 Commission?

[MannyGoldstein]

39. That was different.

Because now we know they were right.

[geek tragedy]

75. They were not peddling clinically insane bullshit

the way that Wolf and her ilk are.

There is not one shred of evidence supporting the nutjobs' claim that the CIA kidnapped these guys. None.

It's entirely in the imagination of people who immerse themselves in a fantasy world very similar to the Birthers and Sandy Hook denialists.

[geek tragedy]

71. Proud of them, and view them as entirely differently

from the "no plane hit the pentagon" crowd.

[hack89]

85. Once you distinguish "the Jersey Girls" from 9/11 Truthers

it is easy to admire their courage and fortitude. They certainly do not peddle CT crap.

[CJCRANE]

96. They still have about 300 questions

that they are waiting for answers for.

[hack89]

97. I know

there are many unanswered question regarding the US relationship with Saudi Arabia or the numerous intel failures.

That is separate from 911 Truther CTs like holograms, CD, MIHOP, etc.

[sufrommich]

17. She's also a regular guest on the Alex Jones show.

Birds of a feather.

[cali]

21. what makes me want to vomit is the callous dog shit

coming from people in this thread right here on DU.

[sufrommich]

24. I have zero tolerence for people who believe

conspiracy theories,they creep me out.

[CJCRANE]

27. Have you read the full 9/11 report?

[CJCRANE]

30. Naomi Wolf is loony tunes

on this, but just like the 9/11 controlled demolition obsessives, that only serves to obfuscate very real and relevant questions.

[DanTex]

51. What are the real and relevant questions you are referring to?

[CJCRANE]

55. Is a British Jihadi killing journalists

a good reason to escalate a war in Iraq and Syria?

Who is the British guy in the mask? What is his agenda? Should we let him dictate our agenda?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

58. I see the beheadings as having the same effect as the attacks of 9/11. The

beheadings were/are the "new Pearl Harbor" of this decade.

[zappaman]

84. yes, it's just like pearl harbor.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

87. You fail, as usual. And I'm still here despite the best efforts you are capable of...

[zappaman]

109. perhaps you would be so kind as to explain how this is "a new pearl harbor"

Can't wait to hear.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

110. I'm still here! Hahahahahahahaa! you can't get rid of meeeeeee....!!!111!11

[zappaman]

112. nothing, eh?

not surprised!

[DanTex]

59. I agree that those are real and relevant questions.

I was asking about the 9-11 comment you made, sorry should have made that clearer.

[CJCRANE]

62. The redacted pages

contain information about financing and other support.

[cali]

65. of course. that's totally reasonable, but it's not the topic and it's nothing close to

what Wolf is saying.

[GoneFishin]

32. Who says the victims have to be fake for right wing chicken hawks to be behind

these videos?

Public support was against bombing Syria, now it is for intervention. Public support was decidedly against staying in Iraq, now not so much. These videos have served the war hawks exactly at a time when they needed it most.

So while I don't know who is behind the videos, I do know who has the means, motive, and opportunity.

And as some poster on DU asked a number of weeks ago, why is ISIS rubbing the American public's nose in these videos? It's like they are begging us to come over as a united American front and bomb the ever-loving crap out of them?

I am open to this being a stunt to manipulate US public opinion. As far as the poor souls in these videos go, hypothetically, reporters covering bad US military behavior overseas have never held a warm spot in the hearts of right wingers.

[cali]

46. this really isn't rocket science: Being targeted by The U.S. is great for recruitment

[KoKo]

63. I agree with you....

The timing and orchestration of ISIS blasting into the Media with Beheadings and threats of more along with taking territory in Iraq/Syria so swiftly does open itself to questions. It led quickly to a revived urgency to bomb in Syria and add more Troops ("Consultants&quot in Iraq. How bizarre is it Saudi Arabia (a country very fond of beheadings as punishment along with other brutalities) will be training 5,000 moderates to combat ISIS. Will Prince Bandar be doing the training? Back in good graces with the USA & the other Saudi Princes once again? Or was he ever really "out of favor," despite the reports to the contrary.

What Naomi Wolf is putting out there on Facbook, etc. seems meant to distract from real questioning. The chatter become about "her" and her mental stability rather than discussing the issues you bring up in your post. I think she has come out with some odd statements in the past so, maybe she's just a voice that has had better days and should be ignored.

[lunasun]

107. Wolf not N Klein !

[KoKo]

117. Absolutely...I have corrected.. Just read environmental article by Klein...

and had her on my brain...

[WinkyDink]

40. Hmmm...She seems mostly to be asking that journalists do their job and verify. (I have no doubts.)

[cali]

64. not even close. and she's one of the shoddiest writers around and always has been

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/no-naomi-wolf-america-is-not-becoming-a-fascist-state/266951/

and she's a flat out liar: there are multiple sources, as Fisher points out in the OP, for the deaths of Foley, etc.

she really is a reprehensible piece of shit. always was.

[WinkyDink]

90. I liked "The Beauty Myth." And her "The Shock Doctrine" I should probably read.

[cali]

94. I thought the Beauty Myth was lacking- not particularly insightful. She didn't write the Shock

Doctrine. Naomi Wolf is no Naomi Klein.

[WinkyDink]

102. Oops!

[lunasun]

108. Wolf not N Klein !

[reorg]

124. no, actually, you are a very shoddy reader

Naomi Wolf points out:

... that the source of SITE is problematic, that it received half a million dollars in government funding in 2004, that it is a syndication service for media so we can't seem to double-check the videos online (other people have not been able to find them) and that I was trained, as are all journalists, to have two independently confirmed sources for a news story. As far as I know there is only this one problematic source for most of the videos.

https://www.facebook.com/naomi.wolf.author/posts/10152722827149476

That is also my understanding, wherever I found one of those videos it was a copy of one posted at SITE.

Now, you apparently take as fact what the pathetic little hit piece in your OP is claiming, that there allegedly are "multiple sources" for the videos, while failing to specify which ones and where we can find them.

But listen to what Ms Katz of SITE has personally stated (at the end of the clip below):

"... in fact, within a short time of our release (of the Sotloff video), ISIS' account on social media indicated that within a short time they will be releasing the video, only we had actually the video beforehand and were able to beat them with the release".

In answer to the question where SITE obtained the video, she only says they "knew" where to look and vaguely describes the process. Impossible to verify, unless somebody else confirms the actual source (which is what Naomi Wolf is asking for).

[SidDithers]

42. Naomi Wolf at Ron Paul Rally...

Sid

[H2O Man]

53. Recommended.

I have never had a particularly high opinion of this person's thinking, even in regard to issues that I am in general agreement. Yet, I think that it is important -- vital, in fact -- that people question anything and everything that "government" (or any type of "leader&quot claims to be factual. In this instance, however, I cringe at her claims.

This is not to say that I do not believe that there are purposeful distortions, and outright lies, being spoon-fed to an ignorant and fearful public. In fact, that is the very reason that a questioning spirit is essential. More, there are those within the "ruling class" that have and will continue to sacrifice the lives of soldiers, to enrich themselves. And to injure and kill innocent people in foreign lands, to access resources. They do so without conscience -- again, good reason to question literally everything.

But those questions are best asked -- and the answers can only be understood -- when those asking them are grounded in reality.

Just my opinion .....

[NuclearDem]

72. JFC at some of the responses.

How did the world ever have war and violence before the American MIC?!

[geek tragedy]

74. No different than the Sandy Hook Truthers. nt

[m-lekktor]

73. I "unfollowed" her on facebook a few years back, she annoyed me.

She was going on a few years back about wishing somebody was amongst "Occupy" filming and covering the goings on so i mentioned to her about Tim Pool of Timcast but she refused to consider him "worthy". apparently he wasn't credentialed enough. At the time he was considered decent and consistent for Occupy coverage (CNN often used his footage for example) but not good enough for her so i stopped contributing to her facebook discussions and unfollowed her out of annoyance. I tolerated her for a good while , she interacted with us little people on her facebook page, but I got the impression she was a pretentious flake.

[MattSh]

95. I followed links to Vox a couple of times...

were not all that impressed with their "journalism."

[Tarheel_Dem]

104. Naomi has entered "death panel" territory. I'm pondering what her DU handle might be.

[Corruption Inc]

105. Another journalist who simply asks for rational thinking is thrown under the bus

along with a slew of personal insults.

Bye.

[muriel_volestrangler]

118. She threw herself under, screaming "only I know the Real Truth!"

She's not asking for rational thinking; she's asking people to stop thinking at all.

If you're leaving, I hope you come back some time, because it sounds like you'd prefer to go somewhere where writers use violent deaths to shout "look at me!!!!!!!" And you'll find nothing but garbage in such places. Wolf is an idiot, egotist, or both.

[cali]

121. a) that is not what she is doing. not at all. b) there's nothing rational about her.

[reorg]

125. I ask myself if there is anything rational about your

fact-free posts in this very thread?

So, Naomi Wolf wants to know more about those videos than we have been told. Big deal, but this very idea seems so incendiary to you that you go on to write some pretty abusive posts.

Perhaps you shouldn't rely on petty little hit pieces on the web like the one in your OP and read what Naomi Wolf actually wrote?

A commentator below self-identified as being the New York Times reporter covering the hostage crisis. This reporter asked me to take my post about asking for confirmation of the hostage story down, as this reporter said that keeping it up is "irresponsible" and not respectful to the pain of the families involved.

The reporter wrote that there has been a news blackout requested of media for the last two years and that the abductions were known for two years to news outlets, who were respecting the blackout. The reporter also said that it is common for people in conflict areas to go from the military to nonprofit work.

So I have taken the post down pending more reporting of the questions, at which point I will include the new reporting and repost it with the new information included. I asked the reporter to contact me at [e-mail], first so I can confirm this is indeed the New York Times reporter who is covering the hostage crisis, and second because, as I wrote back, we still have several unanswered questions we have been putting to the New York Times for some weeks about this story.

First: it is helpful for us to know that there was a news blackout, according to this commentator/reporter (I gather that was reported). But it raises more questions -- if there was a news blackout that protected the hostages for the last two years, how are news outlets not endangering them by reporting so widely on the crisis now?

https://www.facebook.com/naomi.wolf.author/posts/10152722827149476

I remember many abductions in the Middle East over the decades, but not one where a "news blackout was requested of the media". The media would certainly not report on or know every detail of the negotiations, but I never heard about any total news blackout on abductions before. So, yes, it would be interesting to learn more about that aspect, too.

[hrmjustin]

111. I find these conspiracy theories distasteful and i don't buy them.

[Blue_Tires]

120. Someone was going to hop on the bandwagon sooner or later

since folks like Greenwald have been accusing Obama of inventing fictitious terror threats for a couple of years...

and Wolf's own words:
https://twitter.com/robaeprice/status/518499421659889664

[awoke_in_2003]

123. Oh, I read "Naomi Wolf"...

and thought "Naomi Klein"

[Zorra]

126. Cuz the CIA/MIC/USA has never and would never

harm innocent people as a means toward achieving their goals, ain't that right?

As in like "Mission Accomplished" and yellowcake and waterboarding and all the other fracking bullshit they shove down our throats on a daily basis.

[reorg]

128. not quite as accomplished as Naomi Wolf, the author of that little hit piece

as a cursory glance over some of his highly opinionated articles reveals, seems mostly concerned with demonstrations in Hong Kong and an alleged Russian "invasion" in Ukraine. Most recently he explained that "Peter Kassig, whom ISIS says it will kill next, had dedicated his life to helping Syrians" - by which the author refers to medical assistance offered in Lebanon to people engaged in a violent uprising against the Syrian government, not all of them Syrians, and not shy of using the most brutal means imaginable to accomplish their goals either.

It is probably safe to assume that this author fits very well in a milieu that has been described as providing the "ground base of already productive relations with journalists" in a memo that the CIA released on 29 July 2014.

Still, since his word is apparently taken as gospel not only by the usual suspects here, let's quickly examine if any of the abuse he is heaping on Naomi Wolf just in the paragraphs cited in the OP is holding up to scrutiny.

insane conspiracy theory
False, NW asks some specific questions, she does neither imply nor suggest any scenario, only demands more scrutiny.

questioned the veracity of the ISIS videos
False, NW does not make any claims about the "veracity" of any of these videos and what actually IS their "veracity" supposed to be? I think there is room for interpretation about their meaning and intent. NW asks that their "authenticity" be confirmed, but that's a different question.

strongly implying that the videos had been staged
False, NW simply states they would be easy to stage (as was in fact stated by British intelligence)

by the US government
False

and that the victims and their parents were actors
False.

suggesting that the US was sending troops to West Africa not to assist with Ebola treatment but to bring Ebola back to the US to justify a military takeover of American society
Pulled out of someone's behind, totally false.

suggested that the Scottish independence referendum, in which Scots voted to remain in the United Kingdom, had been faked
Didn't look that one up but I'm willing to bet it's also highly misleading: fact is that questionable practices and dubious incidents have been reported in the very night of the referendum by several sources

suggesting that the ISIS beheading videos had been staged, as had the initial abductions
No, she does not "suggest" that, she points out a possibility in the absence of proof and verification - which she demands, and regarding the abductions later receives.

of the two American journalists and two British aid workers killed on camera
Very interesting lapse because the victims were not actually "killed on camera" as everyone who has seen the videos can attest to.

She hints that she believes this was done by the US military.
False, as in all of the above, the author projects something he desperately wants to see in NW's short Facebook post. NW is not readily swallowing everything she reads in the papers, even if Democrats are at the helm. Such traitors must be destroyed, obviously, so let's get on with the slaughter.

[aikoaiko]

131. I'm such a sucker for Naomi Wolf

[IMG][/IMG]