The BFP Roundtable Takes on the Islamic Terror Hype

On this edition of the BFP Roundtable the panel gets into a lively discussion on the marketing of the "ISIS" brand of "Islamic Terror." But if the terror boogeyman is the product, then who's the customer and who are they buying from? Join Peter, Sibel, Guillermo and James for an uncensored conversation on terror, black ops, boogeymen and blowback.

♪ (theme music) ♪

So it's just like, OK:

let's just have a real talk, real talk:
no censorship.

Welcome to the
Boiling Frogs Post Roundtable.

In San Francisco, I'm Peter B. Collins.

I host podcasts at PeterBCollins.com

and the Processing Distortion
weekly podcast

at BoilingFrogsPost.com.

Joining us from deep in the heart of
Texas is Guillermo Jimenez.

He operates Demanufacturing Consent
and TracesOfReality.com,

and of course is a weekly contributor
here at Boiling Frogs Post.

Guillermo, welcome.

Thanks, Peter.

James Corbett, as usual, joins us
from Japan,

where he anchors CorbettReport.com,

and of course the podcast series,
the video podcast series,

at BoilingFrogsPost.com.

And also with us, of course,

is our publisher and the founder of
BoilingFrogsPost.com, Sibel Edmonds:

the author of a powerful new novel
called The Lone Gladio

that I certainly enjoyed,

and I think there's a lot in there for
our viewers to check out.

Sibel, good to have you with us.

Hello, everyone.

So, we are speaking a couple of days
before Halloween.

And while we are not in costume,

it seems like the theatrical fear of
Halloween started in August

and will continue well beyond.

And the sources of fear are the propaganda

around the Islamic State,

this threat to life on the planet as
we know it

that has caused President Obama

to launch airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.

Also, domestically, the media

-- the corporate media --

is giving heavy coverage to the
Ebola issues,

and it also becomes a source

of palpable fear in the American public.

I don't believe it's coincidental
that this is occurring

just before the mid-term elections
in November,

and I think that members of both
political parties

are doing what they can to exploit
these fears

in an effort to cynically pick up votes.

Sibel, let's start with you.

Because the framing of this monster,
the Islamic State,

is driven not only by the effective
propaganda that they produce,

but by the way it is played in the US
media

and played off by American
political leaders,

who have created this fear and dread

that actors from the Islamic State,

with American or Canadian passports,

are any moment now about to descend

here in the so-called homeland

and launch terrorist attacks.

There is no evidence of that;

the government has offered us
conflicting numbers

of their estimates of the number of people

who might be prone to do that.

But with the recent events in Canada
and Australia

we see those governments embracing

police state new laws in response

to what are a series of lone wolf attacks.

Oh, absolutely.

I have been, lately, framing this

within marketing paradigms,

of marketing and marketing frame.

Because you start, first,
with a brand, OK?

And we had, for 12, 13 years, one brand:

with propaganda, and all the mainstream

-- which are the tentacles of the deep
state here, the war machine --

al-Qaeda was created.

And al-Qaeda brand...

I know you have been paying attention,

but our viewers:

I mean, it kind of has been
losing its effect.

In fact, in the past few years,

even in some of the mainstream
media programs,

we have seen people making fun of it

and comedies are being made of al-Qaeda.

So that kind of created panic within
the Deep State,

saying, "That brand is not doing
very well."

"Why don't we re-brand the
boogeymans that we created"

"and come up with something else?"

So, first they came up with a brand.

And strategically, within this new brand,

they inserted the term "Islam."

And again: that was very well-calculated

-- it was by design --

and threw it in there: Islamic State.

So... and then you can have other
various abbreviations.

But one thing that remains constant,

that is the Islamic State, OK?

And then, within just a few months,

they have been able to blow up

this Islamic State, so-called
Islamic State,

new boogeyman that they created.

You know: financing it, training them.

We have covered it through
Boiling Frogs Post and Corbett Report

in terms of what happened in
Turkey three years ago.

And these people were trained
against Assad's regime, et cetera;

armed, directed.

So, these are our guys,

and then we re-branded them

and made them called, "Islamic State,"
blah-blah. [laughs]

And then, just in the past few months,

I've been reading some headlines

that are unbelievable, fantastical.

In fact, just three days ago,

I couldn't help myself,

and I kept tweeting about it.

The headlines said, "Based on
government calculation,"

"currently this IS business, this cell,"

"is the wealthiest terror organization,"

"the wealthiest terror cell,
in the world."

That's exactly like some start-up
business

that you want to take public.[laughter].

Have the stocks created for it.

You put together;

you come up with a logo,

you have a brand name,

and you kind of market the brand

so people keep hearing it.

And then you start making this business

-- ooh! --

so fantastical, you know?

So that's what, usually, companies do

before they go public. [laughs]

So it's very Wall Street-like approach,

this "IS business" that they have
created here.

And it is a business:

because if you look at the stock prices

for the major war industry-related
corporations,

you see how it has gone up,

together with the creation of the
brand IS.

And so, that is as far as the brand goes.

But as far as framing goes, again,

I will go back to the brand.

The word "Islam" was inserted into it

-- it was not coincidental, it was not
by accident --

and it was for a purpose, and a desire

to achieve certain types of an affect.

And unfortunately, we are seeing

those effects now around us.

And that is, the entire Western world

putting this within the context,

within the frame, of Islam:

"This is what Muslims do."

You see a guy there

with his shalwar that he's wearing there,

and with that ferocious-looking shawl,

and he has a big sword,

and he's beheading...

I mean, so scary: that's horrible!

And I'm not putting that down.

I'm not lowering the fact:

it's a despicable act.

But, what they are doing is

they are taking these one, two, 10 or
15 incidents, casualties,

and they are turning it, currently,

to something that is bigger than, even,
what al-Qaeda was.

We don't know: there may be millions
of these people,

or there may be only 25 of them within
the cell,

but they're the wealthiest terror cell in
the world.

They can attack us here;

they can attack France;

they can attack the United Kingdom.

Well, I don't know:

they rockets,

they have nuclear bombs,

they have the briefcase bomb,

they have a suitcase bomb,

they have chlorine gas,

and they have other kind of
chemical weapons.

Can you imagine how unbelievably
fantastical this thing is,

that in a few months you have this
entire thing

being created and achieving this level?

I mean, even Donald Trump would shake
his head. [laughter]

You know, the guy is really famous,

and he has done it so many times:

going out there and making a business
out of nothing.

Just based on hype.

But as far as hype business is concerned,

considered,

this is the height of any hype

that I have ever seen.

And I'm hoping that today we will
discuss this

within the context of Islam,

and provide our viewers with some
other examples and context

to... to make them aware,
psychologically, mentally,

of what this propaganda is geared to do.

Because unfortunately, as I mentioned,

the Deep State, the establishment,

they have been achieving the effects,

the results, that they intended to achieve

when they created this brand.

So, Guillermo:

is IS the Kardashian of terrorism?

In a way, yeah. [laughs]

I didn't mean to interrupt you.

How do you view the launch here?

They've launched a new product.

If we go back to 2002, 2003,

the Bush team said,

"Well, you never launch a new product
in August: nobody's paying attention."

So on September 10, Obama gives
this fear-riddled speech

and declares that the Islamic State
is the most evil of all evil

and must be vanquished by US airstrikes.

And he may have been crossing his fingers

when he said that he would not
insert American troops

into Syria or, again, into Iraq.

Right. We discussed this recently
on a BWO podcast:

the fact that this is not a coincidence,

that this tends to happen yearly,

around this time of year:

right after summer,

right after everyone comes back
from summer break,

back to work.

And that's when this really takes off.

And I think that the marketing metaphor

that Sibel was using is right on.

And just to extend that metaphor a bit,

I think if we were to follow the money,
so to speak,

and look at who benefits financially
from all of this,

we can see the people who got in
on the ground floor, so to speak,

of this "ISIS IPO" [laughs] that's
launched.

And so, yeah:

I think you're absolutely right.

And I wanted to focus a little bit

on one of the things you mentioned, Sibel:

because I think one of the things
that really struck me

and that I kind of wanted to
highlight today,

something that you really stressed
recently in an interview...

I think it was Sean Stone, on his show.

And I don't recall the name: is it
*Buzzsaw?

Yes.

And it was a recent interview:

but yeah. And so you were talking about

-- and you really drove this point home,
and I really appreciated it --

we were talking about how...

exactly this:

not only has...

this has been a marketing tool,

but it's being used to demonize
a group of people

in such a way as we haven't seen
in quite some time.

There are historical parallels for sure,

and I think we can get into them today,

but it's really...

it's unlike something that I've ever seen,

the magnitude

-- and perhaps that has to do

with the media age that we live in.

So I can, I guess,

kind of take that into account.

But I did think that was a very
important point to stress:

the way that the argumentizing Muslims,

the argumentizing Islam,

and really stirring up

these really ugly, nationalistic emotions

of patriotism and xenophobia

and, in my opinion, racism,

in many ways.

And I've seen this not only directed

at specifically Muslims,

and specifically Islam,

but it's also being used to redirect
attention

-- at least in some circles --

to the southern US border,

which is where I sort of pay

my most attention to these days.

And what I've seen also is...

and throughout the whole media,

whether it's mainstream,

and some sectors of the alt-media,

they've been using the threat or terror,

the threat of ISIS

-- and again, this is nothing new:

the same thing happened with al-Qaeda,

but it's being renewed now with ISIS --

to direct it at the southern border

and say,

"Look: these ISIS terrorists,"

"they're gonna come over here,"

"they're gonna sneak over the
Mexican border."

"So we need to close it down:"

"we need to send troops down
to the border."

"We need to further militarize it."

"We need to get more police state
gadgetry down there"

"to ensure that this doesn't happen."

And again, I think

it's the same sort of emotions that
are invoked

that you were describing in that interview

and you mentioned here today:

those same xenophobic, racist...

the same sort of ideas here.

And it's being used in sort of a
two-fold front:

where... it's kind of a two-for-one

sort of special that they're running here,

where they can at the same time
demonize Islam,

get that War on Terror going,

and at the same also redirect attention

to say, "Oh, by the way:"

"we also need to further militarize
the southern border"

"and the communities who live
in that area."

So again, I've seen this throughout
the media,

in various different outlets.

So I wanted, I guess,

just kind of throw in that angle,

throw that into the mix

and see what you all think about that.

But no, I would agree so far

with everything that we've said so far.

James, give us the benefit of
your perspective

from outside the United States.

Because I would make the point
that in 2003,

when Bush launched an obvious
fool's errand

with the invasion of Iraq,

there were some 10 million people
worldwide

who took to the streets to express
their protests.

And here, because Obama is the
man who pulled the trigger,

and because of the effective marketing
and propaganda that we've seen,

there is hardly a hint of protest,

even from the hard-core peace
and justice groups

that were growing,

and growing in their influence,

during the Bush era.

Well, that's correct.

And of course, we did see signs of that

last year with the "Hands Off Syria"
campaign.

But obviously, that's gone by the wayside

because of this successful
marketing campaign.

And I can give you the perspective,

specifically, from here in Japan, where...

which would be just about one
of the last places on Earth

that you would think this kind of
marketing would be effective.

And yet, we've had...

just a few weeks ago,

there was a plot busted of men,

"Japanese Men Were Planning
to Fight for ISIS, Police Say,"

is the headline that The New York Times
ran with.

And this is about a bust of some...

I guess a university student

and some man who was trying
to radicalize him

at a bookstore in Tokyo

or something of that sort.

A very...

not a very threatening story,

if you actually start to dig into it.

But the terror brand is being sold
here, equally,

as it is elsewhere in the West.

Is it quite effective in that regard,

because again, just about any place
in the world

can be afflicted by this marketing

if you just frame it in the right way:

"Oh, you're in trouble too."

"You'd better help in this worldwide
quest against Islamic terrorism."

So I want to pick up on just two
of the points

that Sibel raised in that
opening statement

that I think are extremely important.

The first one being just the observation

of the incredible rise, the ascension,

of this terror group that now,
as she says,

has nuclear materials in their possession:

$429 million dollars

that they plundered from the
Mosul Central Bank,

and on and on and on.

Just all of the incredible facilities

that they supposedly have,

now, at their disposal.

Which... you would have to say,

this is the primary example

of the dog that didn't bark:

"Silver Blaze," it's Sherlock Holmes.

You know, I mean:

if we were to take the CIA

and these types of groups seriously,

the fact that they have not been able

to foresee or prevent the rise

of this spectacularly powerful
and effective terror group

in the space of a few months

alone shows that they are
absolutely unworthy

of the titles and the money
that's given to them.

Of course, we all know that that's because

they're really working towards

the creation of these terror groups.

But anyway, that's just one thing
to note on this.

The other part of this is the idea
that, specifically,

it is Islam that is being brought
into this.

And I would say that although

there are identifiable elements
within Islam

that, of course, can interpret
those teachings in violent ways,

and do do so,

that is, of course, not

inherently intrinsic to Islam
in particular.

And we can see that in pretty much
every major religion.

We can see examples of that.

And for the Christians in the crowd
who roll their eyes

whenever the Westboro Baptist Church
is brought up

as some sort of exemplar

of what Christian morality is about,

well, people will say,

"Well, that's ridiculous,"

"because 99.999 percent of Christians
think that those people are insane."

Well, again:

it's the exact same thing in Islam.

But we don't say that any time that
a Christian commits a criminal act

that it's some sort of Christian
terrorist,

in the same way that, generally speaking,

the media will never look

at Jewish racism against Arabs in Israel

and say, "Oh, those Jews! They're
always racist,"

"and they're inciting terror in
Palestine."

You'll never see coverage, for example,

of the Buddhist monks that are now

joining flash mobs against Muslims

that leave dozens of Muslims dead:

in Sri Lanka, in Burma.

I mean, it happens.

In every major religion,

there are elements within there

that will commit acts of violence,

and it's never framed as in,

"This is the religion causing people
to do this."

It's always framed as...

it's only framed in that sense

when it's politically convenient to do so.

So I think it is important to look

at the way that Islamic terror has
been framed

as "Islamic" in nature,

and why that is.

And I guess that's really the question:

what is the purpose of this?

And I think this has to, probably, do

with Gladio B and the way that
we've been set up

for the past couple of decades

to be conditioned for this Islamic
terrorism

that has been inculcated in
certain geo-strategic areas.

But I'll leave that to Sibel and
everyone else to comment on.

Well, James, and I would build
on your remarks,

that we're seeing this very
selective outrage

that's exercised particularly

by the mainstream media in this country.

And I'll just cite a couple of examples:

that, on the last Sunday of October,

The New York Times ran
a lengthy, front-page story

which did advance much more detail

about what happened to James Foley

after he was captured and then
held prisoner.

He was waterboarded and subjected

to other forms of torture

remarkably similar to the torture regimes

that the US refers to euphemistically

as "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Furthermore, we have sent

-- but not, so far that I'm aware of,
used --

depleted uranium munitions

in this new perpetual war.

The damage from DU in Iraq

is really just starting to surface

in birth defects, and far more cancers

that are showing up in the
general population.

And we

-- the US, John Kerry was thundering
last week

that there are reports that the
Islamic State

used chlorine gas in a weapon form

in the battle for Kobani.

And I regard depleted uranium

as a chemical or biological weapon,

that is certainly much more
toxic long-term

than the chemical weapons that have
been blamed on the Islamic State.

And likewise, John Kerry

-- who thundered about this --

didn't bother to remark

that he had fully blamed the
Syrian government

for the sarin attacks in Gouda
in August of 2013.

And that now,

it appears to be more consistent

that it was the Sunni radicals
fighting in Syria

who were more likely to have
introduced chemical weapons there.

And so,

this selective outrage over a
couple of beheadings,

when Saudi Arabia has beheaded

more than 59 people already this year,

and not a peep from the US
government about that.

It just shows that the outrage
is focused on,

as you pointed out,

Islamic individuals

and groups that are now demonized

as the worst of the worst on the planet.

And I guess, once again,

we have to say that we don't
favor decapitation

or the massacre of innocent people

because they happen to be
of a different religion,

but that is not the basis

for this poorly-thought strategy

-- if there is one --

and the phony coalition of partners
with the United States

who all have different agendas,

and only pay lip-service to our
stated mission

to degrade or wipe out the Islamic State.

So these inconsistencies really amount

to a great deal of incoherence,

but most people in the United States

are just falling in line,

not asking any questions,

not showing any skepticism,

and just embracing the memes

that have been launched by
the administration

and embraced and endorsed
by the media. Sibel?

No, absolutely.

Well said, Peter.

This is a prelude to a much bigger war
that is intended, OK?

And it is garnering the public support

before we do launch multi-fronted
wars in the area.

We still know that Iran is the prize there

-- it's there.

We ended up having the issues
with Russians,

and things had to be placed on hold
with Syria.

About a year-and-a-half, two years ago

we had a session with James,

and I was talking about:

"This is a temporary cool-off period,"

"and the issue is going to start again
with Syria."

"It's not going anywhere."

Because at the time,

people were celebrating, saying:

"OK, this issue with Putin"

"and Russia putting its foot down,"

"put an end to this"

"going there and invading Syria."

I said, "No, no: that's just temporary."

We've put that on hold temporarily,

then the focus was placed on Ukraine
and what we saw happening there,

and now the focus is coming back
to the region

-- and Syria and Iraq being two,

but we have other nations in the area,

especially Iran.

And this is the prelude;

this is the war hawk period.

This is when the nations,
the United States,

need the public support:

at home here in the United States,

but throughout the Western Europe.

People in the United Kingdom,

basically, NATO nations.

Because the people there,
their opinion matters

for these multi-fronted wars

that we have been preparing for

against exactly the same countries
and nations

that have been the prize that
we have been chasing.

So these are all prelude and warm-up.

And I mean, as far as the branding goes

and what they are doing by putting
the word "Islam" there

and creating a tension

-- and again, this is an intended
tension --

between the Western world and
the Muslim community

-- and that means those nations --

you know, just amazing.

And for some people who really
don't understand it,

we need to provide a certain level
of context

and give them a framework.

Because let's look at the recent Gaza
conflict that we had, OK?

These were major assaults by Israel.

To a degree, that an Israel-supporting
human rights organization

came out and said, "We are looking at
war crimes," all right?

I mean, that's pretty... kind of...

that is unexpected from an organization
like Human Rights [Watch],

because even they couldn't deny it.

Because we know how it has been for
the past five decades:

whatever Israel does is fine, OK?

And everything is placed with a stamp
of approval.

But in this case,

with all the atrocities that they
committed, Israel,

and all the assaults,

even the organizations

-- US organizations --

had to some and say,

"Well, these are war crimes."

Imagine if... I mean, daily we were
seeing reports, right?

The Israeli soldiers bombing, and
20 kids dying here,

an entire family dying there, blowing
up into pieces.

Imagine if our mainstream media

-- and, Peter, the so-called alternative
media, too:

I haven't seen any difference, especially
with these reportings --

but imagine if they put on CNN and
Fox News and NBC and Salon,

and all of them:

"Today, the Jewish soldiers blew up
11 children," OK?

"And they wipe out an entire family."

Once, just once:

because if they were to do that,

there would be such outrage here
from the Israel lobby.

There would be these flags being waved:

you know, antisemitism, OK?

This is absolutely unacceptable.

You would see The New York Times
editor being fired.

You would see the CBS reporters,
anchorperson being fired,

for pairing up the religion, "Jewish,"

with the soldiers who actually
committed those acts.

Now, those soldiers: were they Jewish?

Yes.

And I'm not saying two wrongs make
it right:

I'm saying, imagine if that were the case.

When, during the Gaza conflict,

for four months, every time they paired
up Israel's assaults and their war crimes

-- and I'm saying it because even
Human Rights [Watch],

they are saying it was to the level
of war crimes, OK? --

they reported as committed by Jews.

Imagine that, OK?

It would have been wrong,

and they would have just objected to it.

But, if you look at it factually

-- because people say,
"Hey, look: it is true."

"These people are Muslims,"

"and they are beheading,"

"and they are doing that."

Well, these soldiers committing
these war crimes

were, and are, Jewish.

What does it have to do with anything OK?

And as you mentioned, if we start...

Peter, you just mentioned about,

as nations, let's look at it:

in the past century, which country

has used chemical weapons and
nuclear weapons in wars, OK?

Are we number one there, or aren't we?

I mean, anybody is going to object here?

We have had Hiroshima, OK?

We have had Nagasaki,

and we have had Agent Orange

in Vietnam and in Cambodia, OK?

We have had the First Gulf War.

You just mentioned

-- and that's a very, very important
point, Peter --

in Iraq, again.

We are the number one nation

-- I would say, the only nation --

that has been using weapons of mass
destruction

-- chemical, nuclears, OK? --

for the past half a century.

Nobody else has our record, OK?

Now, to say that every time,

if we have these reports,

we just insert this,

saying, "The Christian soldiers of the
United States of America,"

"they killed one-and-a-half million people
in Vietnam."

Or, "Today, the United States
Christian military,"

"with their drones, they wiped out
an entire tribe or family there,"

"including grandchildren and babies,
et cetera."

Can you imagine a reportage like that?

Well, people have to consider this.

They should also look into the other
side and say,

"How do you think it's perceived there?"

Yes, we have a one man with one sword,

or five men with five swords,

or 50 men with 50 swords, OK?

Think about the damage they can inflict,

versus a guy listening to acid
music in Utah,

air-conditioned room, chewing gum,

pressing the button there, sending
the bombs with the drones,

[xx] killing thousands of people

over three, four days' period.

Now, if you want to compare atrocity acts:

why is it that, for some reason,

people in the Western nations,

especially here in the United States,

they have a problem getting a grasp

of the atrocities committed in the
most atrocious way

-- this way, I would call it the
robotic wars --

yet they can have two, or three,
or five, or ten

awful, despicable beheadings

as the most scary thing can ever happen?

I mean, these are all the different
things, by design,

put in place by the Deep State

that is having, again, that intended
result.

And one last comment I have here

that I would like for you, all of you,
to talk about,

is: they are bringing back

one of those phrases that I loathe,

and that is "blowback."

They're not getting tired of this.

And especially the alternative media:

especially the so-called,
pseudo-"alternative" media.

They did that with the mujahideen
in Afghanistan:

that was a "blowback;"

it created the al-Qaeda,

and it came to...

haunted us, with 9-1-1.

Now they're saying, "Yeah, sure:"

"we did put together the liberation army,"

"and armed them, and trained them"

"-- we are the one that put
this in place --"

"and then it came back and... 'blowback!'"

I mean, blowback:

you can only define

what's happening today as a blowback

if you are facing unintended
consequences, OK?

In this case, the United States

- the Deep States --

are getting the intended consequences.

Therefore, this can in no way

be categorized as blowback.

Because this is by design,

and what we are seeing

is what was intended in the first place:

it's paving the way for more wars,

the perpetual wars:

for the war industry,

for the oil industry,

for the financial institutions,

the financial industry.

Therefore, this is intended.

So to go back here... people

-- like, jerks; like, Scheuers and
all these people --

"Oh, yeah, we see that."

"When are they going to learn?"

"When is our government going to learn?"

"See? We have another blowback!"

"They were trying to help these people"

"with their liberation against Assad,"

"atrocious regime."

"Now, look: they're here"

"and our biggest enemy,"

"and number one enemies:"

"Blowback!"

Please: describe that phrase,

and I would like to hear your take

on this blowback notion that was
being attached to it

as it was with al-Qaeda.

All right, can we go...

And actually I have an answer to that.

Yeah, I have an answer to that actually,

as far as...

on both points, as a matter of fact.

The idea that for most Americans

whatever the US government does
is automatically justified

because, "Hey, it's my government,"

"and my government can do no wrong:"

"we're spreading democracy, after all!"

And so when they go bombing people
all over the world,

as you mentioned, Sibel,

it's automatically, it's inherently,
in a way

-- at least in their mind --

it's inherently justified

because we're the United States

and we're exceptional and we can
do no wrong.

And to that point, also:

as far as the blowback angle:

again, from a psychological perspective,

it makes sense to say, from that
perspective,

if your government can do no wrong
and it's inherently good,

then when it does do something wrong,

then it must have been a mistake.

It must have been unintentional,

and this must be blowback.

So I go back to the point that
I raised earlier,

as far as nationalism

and misguided perceptions of patriotism.

I think that's what it's rooted in,

from a psychological perspective:

the idea that we can do no wrong,

we are exceptional,

we are

-- what's the Navy propaganda
commercial? --

"A Global Force For Good."

I throw up every time I see that.

I can't stand that commercial:

it comes on every now and then.

But... yeah.

So, just to go back to something

that both of you raised, you and James:

I just want to echo, I agree completely

that there's nothing

-- I believe --

there's nothing inherently violent

in Islam as a religion.

And if you're going to say...

if you're going to make that argument that

there's something inherently violent
about the religion,

then you'd have to say that Christianity

is also inherently violent

-- if you're going to make that argument.

I wouldn't do that.

But you'd have to put them on
the same plane, I would think.

That's the sort of argument from
the Bill Mahers of the world.

He says stuff like this,

although he does spend a
disproportionate amount of time

talking about Muslims:

because, I suppose, they're an easy target

for an American audience these days.

And so that's that:

that sort of account for that.

But I just wanted to make

a quick point, quick example,

to go back to the point that I
raised earlier.

Because I realize that I did not offer

a concrete example of what I
was talking about.

So I just want to throw this
at you briefly,

and this is a heading from FoxNews.com:

no surprise there.

So, it says,

"Congressman: 'At least 10 ISIS fighters'"

"caught trying to cross into US."

This is Congressman Duncan Hunter
from California.

And he cites no source.

He says, "Oh, anonymous Border Patrol
sources told me that this happened."

-- again, without any evidence,

just completely making stuff up.

It make no sense whatsoever that this
would be happening.

And for any listeners out there,

any viewers that are even entertaining
this thought

-- because, as I said earlier:

I've seen this not only

in the mainstream press, like in Fox News;

I've seen this in so-called alt-media
outlets,

perpetuating the same nonsense

that ISIS fighters are sneaking over.

But think about this for a second:

if you're an ISIS terrorist in Iraq
or Syria,

and your objective is to sneak
into the United States,

you're going to cross an ocean, right?

At some point, either by plane
or boat or something...

No thinking!

Well, yeah. [laughs]

Because some of... why would
you go to Mexico

and then cross to the US border?

Why wouldn't you go directly into
the United States,

or why not go to Canada

where the border is much less protected:

it's much more open.

It's warmer! [xx] [laughter]

Maybe the [xx] The weather's better:

that's why they're going to Mexico first.

It makes no sense at all. But anyway...

They'd have to stop off and pick up

the "Fast and Furious" guns on their
way to the gig. [laughter]

That's it. That is funny.

No, no: the answer is to militarize
the Canadian border, Guillermo!

That's what we need to do. [laughter]

All right, OK: Can I have a say?

Yes.

Yeah, go for it.

All right. Well, on the blowback note:

there was a humorous comment left
on The Corbett Report

-- I think with regards to our previous
Beard World Order conversation,

where the latest stories about the
humanitarian aid being dropped

into Iraq or Syria or wherever it is

that's getting "blown by the winds"

into, actually, Islamic State hands.

And somebody said,

"Well, that's what 'blowback' really is"

-- ha-ha-ha.

But, OK: let's think of it this way.

I think we shouldn't do disservice
to the argument

that Islamic terror is Islamic,

because I think what we're dealing
with here

is just basic logic:

all x are y, therefore all y are x?
No, of course that doesn't follow.

All Islamic terrorists are Islamic,
therefore all terrorists are Islamic?

No, that doesn't follow.

So I think what we have to do is
understand, yes:

the Islamic State is clearly Islamic.

The people who fight for Islamic State
are clearly Islamists

-- I mean, that's a prerequisite, right?

Or the people at the lower levels, anyway:

I don't know about the people at the
top of these organizations.

But anyway, clearly an Islamic
organization

trying to set up an Islamic caliphate.

I mean, there is a religious element
to this.

And you could say, well, with the
US military,

it is not exclusively Christian.

There are people who are not Christian
who serve in the US military forces,

and they are not serving explicitly
Christian ends;

they are not trying to establish an
explicitly Christian government

in Syria or Iraq, or what have you.

So it's different in that regard.

I think that would only bolster
my argument

that statism is a religion,

because it's always framed in,
"We're doing this for democracy,"

which is, I think, the religious
conviction

of a lot of people who are serving
in the military in this context.

But anyway, I think that would be
the argument

that a lot of people would put against

the argument that we're making here,

and I think, again, I think we have

to point out the logical flaws in this:

that, yes, there is a subsection

of Islamic culture or Islamic peoples

that are motivated by their religion

to commit acts of violence.

Again, like every other religious sect

has their own similar problems.

But let's put that in the perspective

of what we've been talking about

as some sort of marketing campaign:

because it strikes me that
something that...

just as human beings, fundamentally,

psychologically, something that we

are almost incapable of doing

is seeing that when we are looking

at something on the TV

-- when we're watching some report

that's filed from Syria or Iraq
or wherever --

on the TV,

what we are seeing is explicitly
what we are being shown.

We are seeing whatever the
camera is pointed at,

and we are not seeing what the
camera is not pointing at.

And that's not just the literal,

that's also metaphorical.

I mean, there is...

whatever we are not seeing

is the big, excluded factor in all
of this.

We are seeing the faces of these
journalists

who supposedly are being beheaded
in these videos.

These...

"this is the face of... this is what
happens with Islamic terror,"

and these Islamic terrorists kill
these people.

And look at these white journalists

out there that are being killed:

it's horrific.

But what we are not seeing is...

I think, Sibel, what you were
gesturing towards

-- is the victims of the terror

inflicted by the US government,

or the Israeli government,

or any of the allied NATO countries'
governments

with these bombs dropping on
these populations,

and the Agent Orange, or whatever:

those are the excluded faces,

and explicitly so.

Because again, most of these images

are explicitly censored from the media,

that we are not allowed to show

some of these things on television.

You can't show a corpse hideously mangled

by a Hellfire missile from a drone.

You can't show any of these things on TV,

because that would be...

that would offend our sensibilities.

But of course you can parade
these beheaded journalists out,

and show them a million times a day

until we think this is the most pressing
issue

on the face of the planet.

So again, it's...

what we are not being shown

is not only equally important,

but probably more important,
than what we are being shown.

Well, I want to address

the question Sibel posed about blowback.

And on one level,

I certainly appreciate what you're saying:

that we shouldn't use blowback

to describe things that are
probably intentional.

But I do think that this is a multi-layered
story,

and that there is a legitimate use of the
term blowback

when you talk about the failed strategy

of the so-called "surge,"

which separated Sunni and Shia

in an effort to tamp down the civil war

that has since re-erupted in Iraq.

I do believe that we're experiencing
blowback

from the de-Baathification,

the marginalization of Sunnis

early in the occupation of Iraq.

So I take your point that there
are
intentional objectives

and initiatives by the United States
and some of our allies

that don't properly fall under the
term "blowback,"

and I do understand your irritation
when it's misapplied,

but I think that we're paying a price,

as I mentioned earlier,

for the detention and torture
regimes that we employed.

We're seeing that used against us now,

and I do consider that a form of blowback,

because it was simply stupid

for the United States to employ
those tactics,

and we are playing a price for it;

and again, I would legitimately put that

under the proper definition of blowback.

OK, well, I have a comeback for that one:

because let's say that is true

-- which I don't believe is the case,

because there is this saying,

it's an English, American saying,

fool me once, shame on you;
fool me twice, shame on me?"

Is that how it goes?

Not according to George [W.] Bush,
but [xx]

[laughs] Right. Well, think about it:

because we have been saying this,

and the analysts on CNN

have been talking about what you
just talked about,

for the past half-century, OK?

They... we have had so many analysts

coming on all mainstream media

and saying we had, even, blowback

because we installed Shah regime there

-- OK, the kingdom there? --

and because of that, this happened.

Well, if that were the case, Peter,

if you have it over half a century

once or twice,

and three times, four times,

five times, six times,

seven times, eight times

15 times, 30 times, 50 times,

then you say, "What the fuck?" OK?

-- excuse my language here --

I mean, you can't fall back on that
blowback

for goddamn 50 years, OK,

and then come and say,

"Aiee! We don't know why it didn't work."

This re-drawing of the maps, OK?

Using the sects and the tribes

and the Sunnis and the Shias and
the Kurds against each other,

we've been doing it,

and we have had a lot of blowback,

because those blowbacks are intended.

Because if they were not,

you do it once and twice and 50 times
and 100 times:

you won't do it again.

If that was the case,

we wouldn't continue after 9/11

supporting Saudi Arabia.

Can you imagine the blowback we're
going to see in Saudi Arabia?

I mean, we have seen nothing with Syria
and Iraq.

When the Saudis, the population

when they really rise up

and they get rid of this despicable
kingdom regime

that is installed there by the United
States,

protected in place by the United States,

you're gonna see the biggest bloodshed
of our time,

as far as Middle East is concer--

I mean, it's happening. It's in the
corner.

Do you think there anyone,

anyone in the United States government,

in the State Department, in the CIA,

who doesn't see this?

Who doesn't expect this?

If that was blowback,

at least after 9/11 we would have said,

"We're not gonna do this!"

Because how many times you're gonna
suffer blowback of the exact same thing?

That means a second option,

and that means all these people are
totally

[gestures strumming lips with finger]
ba-dih-ba-dih-ba-dih -- crazy, OK?

[laughter] That's why we keep doing
the same thing

-- which, I don't think it holds true --

or the only other alternative is,

again, it's intentional:

it is intended.

The division here of Iraq,

with Sunnis and the Shias and the Kurds:

right now, that's exactly what the
United States is doing.

And I had the same conversation
with one person...

he's a Kurdish person in that region

-- and he was saying,
"You know something?"

Actually, he really appreciates what
the United States is doing

-- "Finally they are helping us,"

"and with all the stuff they're gonna
give us,"

"we have some other objectives."

"Because these guns that we are
getting..."

-- they have other enemies as well,
the Kurds:

so there are Kurds in Iran,

there are Kurds in the southern part
of Turkey

-- "so we have plans, and we love it!"

And I told this man

-- this very nice, informed on many
levels, but emotional Kurdish person --

I said, "How many times do you have
to be used?"

Because they always use the Kurds,

whenever it's convenient,

for a very short period of time, right?

The United States and NATO, they do that.

And then, when they finish,

when the job is finished,

they turn their backs.

And let's say it is Turkey

who is gonna go and massacre them

in the tens of thousands:

they won't even lift a finger.

So it's temporary,

and these same people are gonna
come after you,

or when others come after you,

they're gonna make sure the others
have the green light.

So, no:

I absolutely, absolutely believe

that none of these are blowbacks
that are not intended.

And if it is intended, if these are
intended

-- which they are --

it is not a blowback.

Blowback has to be unintended, by nature:

there is no other kind of blowback there.

Maybe we can find a different terminology.

I want to give a very quick
Persian-Iranian belief:

it's like an idiom, mixture with
folktales:

they have this saying, they say,

"Don't ever leave the roofer alone
in the roof for the repair," OK?

And here's where the folktale comes from:

they have flat roofs in Iran, OK?

They are not... you know, the slanted
roofs.

And with the bricks and...

it's one of the businesses

that, especially historically, is there:

it's the roofers.

They go, because some of these bricks
come loose,

and it causes leakage,

and they repair it.

So the folktales goes that when the roofer

-- you know, in this particular city
or village --

goes there,

because he's called to repair
a couple of things

-- on his way out, if he's not watched
by the house owner,

he's gonna go and loosen up

several other of these brick pieces

so that two weeks later he's called again.

This is how the roofer maintains
his business, OK?

And especially if you are looking
at smaller areas.

So if everything is fixed so well,

he may go for a year and a half

not having anything to repair,

so he actually induces problems
so that he would be called.

And they are very good at it, supposedly:

tactically, they are doing it:

so it will come loose in two weeks,

they will be called.

This is exactly what we have

when we have the real Deep State

that is made up...

the military-industrial complex,

and the oil,

and the financial institutions.

Look: their existence, their expansion...

OK, besides their survival and existence
and expansion,

OK, all of these depend on the war
industry.

They want wars, expansion, colonialism.

This is the colonialism:

there is nothing different.

When we have bases in Afghanistan,

that's modern colonialism.

Nobody would disagree with that.

So we have to induce we.

We have to have these beheadings.

If it doesn't happen, we have to
artificially induce it;

because once we do that, look at
their stock prices, OK?

Look at the expenditure on the
military-industrial complex.

The more wars we have, the more
conflicts we have all over the world:

I mean, in most cases we sell to both
sides, OK?

When you look at both sides,

either they are getting these guns
or whatever from the black market,

or they are given, as subsidiaries,

by the United States.

Who wins? Who wins in these scenarios,
in these wars? OK?

Is it a "blowback" for those people?

This is intended.

This is exactly what they want.

And, guess what else they want:

police state, also, increases
that expenditure.

So when we have those terror attacks, OK?

-- like Boston bombing, that was
induced, that was completely staged,

that was false-flag? OK, it was: I believe,
100 percent that it was.

When you have the Metro bombing
in the UK, guess who's selling?

You're gonna put more X-Ray mach
ines in the airports,

and you're going to have more of
these checkpoints,

you're going to have more border control:

you have to fatten up, expand these
old institutions, OK?

Create jobs that otherwise are not
being created

in a country that is bankrupt, OK?

Right now, the war machine

-- even though we are borrowing --

is sustaining this rotten economy.

You take that away, it won't be.

And you call it "blowback?"

No.

There are people who are, big time,
profiting from it.

And it doesn't fall into their lap
by coincidence.

It's exactly the same as those roofers.

You go and do this stuff with the Sunnis;

and you do to it, this thing with
the Kurds;

and you do train these people,

Syrian freedom fighters,

rebels in Turkey and Jordan,

and send them there.

You do all those stuff because
you have intended consequences.

And as a top analyst, you take it
from here. [laughter]

And I wanted to add, just quickly, that...

Guillermo?

Yeah. Well, I think what you're describing

is the problem-reaction-solution strategy,

which I think our listeners are
probably in tune with.

But one thing that I wanted to
mention, though:

I think you're absolutely right.

One point that you made that I
really wanted to highlight

was that these strategies, at this point,

they're not creating the police state:

they are sustaining, maintaining
the police state.

In large part, because as you just
mentioned,

because it did create thousands of jobs,

and those people want to keep their jobs.

And they want to keep those dollars,

those federal dollars, flowing

into the DEA, the FBI, the DHS,

and all the... especially the border area.

Jesus! The border would have
no economy whatsoever

if it were not for the Department
of Homeland Security

and the growing surveillance and
police state:

so, that's completely right-on.

I wanted to just offer, on the
blowback point,

perhaps a little bit of a middle ground.

Because if I understood Peter correctly,

I think what you were saying

was that there is such a thing

as unintended consequences,
on a small scale.

Because after all, we're talking
about human action,

and you can't 100 percent predict

what human beings are going to do.

But I think on a large scale, on
a big-picture,

I think you're absolutely right, Sibel.

I'm not a subscriber of

incompetence theories and
coincidence theories,

so when you see this happening

over and over and over again on
that big scale,

then yeah: I absolutely would agree

that you cannot call that blowback.

If you do, then you're either
misinterpreting it, I believe,

or just being duplicitous, in a way.

Also... oh!

There was one other quick point that...

this is kind of going back

to something else that we talked about,

but if I could just go back to the point

on Islamic terror being used as a
marketing tool

and the comparisons that you made, Sibel,

with how this is reported versus how...

you would never in a million years

see those headlines you described

about Jewish terrorists or Christian
terrorists,

so on and so forth.

I think the last time that I can reme
mber a headline

even coming close to something
like that

would be 1995,

the Oklahoma City bombing with
Timothy McVeigh,

there may have been a headline saying,

"Christian..." whatever.

But it was always paired with "extremist"

or "right-wing, fringe, nut-job
Christian..."

whatever: all these kind of qualifiers
before "Christian."

And so I just wanted to highlight that,

because I can't think of another
example besides that.

Maybe you guys could help me
out with that,

but I honestly cannot think of one...

The only other example I can think
of is, it happened

when we had those abortion
clinics bombings,

and it was attributed to Christian
ultra-right-wing extremists

that engaged in this, that was
short-lived.

So that's the second, only,
example that I can think of.

Yeah, and it was used the same way,

for the same ends, ultimately:

to expand the police state,

to drum up all this fear about terrorism.

And in fact, that was after Oklahoma City

was when Bill Clinton attempted
to introduce

what became known as the Patriot Act.

It was the same legislation, I suppose:

the effect was not large enough

to push that through at the time,

and then came 9/11,

and we all know what happened after that.

So just wanted to, again,

bring that up, just for context.

James?

Well, I don't have a lot of add

to what's been said already,

except for the fact that,

on the blowback note,

it's interesting to note

that the same people who push
the blowback narrative

are these same people who
cheer-led for every invasion

that led to the so-called blowback
that they're now lamenting,

including Amy Goodman

and all of these other cheerleaders
for the war state

who are cheerleading on:

"Let's get Gaddafi in Libya!"

"Let's go into Syria: look at Assad!"

And now they're like,

"Oh, look at the blowback! Oh, this
is so horrible!" [laughter]

And it's just another example:

how long will people continue to listen

to the same people who cheerlead
for the war state

and then pretend to be surprised

by the consequences of it?

Rather than listening to the actual
alternatives, like...

That's right.

...the people here in this conversation.
[laughter]

Who were warning about this before
the Libyan invasion,

before what happened in Syria.

Exactly!

We were right all along.

We were right before it even happened.

But now the people who were wrong
all along

are the ones who are gonna be listened to

by a lot of misled people

who believe that they're listening

to some sort of alternative voice.

And, "Oh, the blowback! Oh, the humanity!"

Guess what, James? The funny thing is

-- not funny as in "ha-ha" funny,
but funny thing --

is, those people who have done it the most

happen to be the ones who pose
in the pseudo-alternative media,

not even mainstream media!

The former CIA analyst saying,

"Yeah, blah-blah-blah, and it was
blowback,"

and they are playing the alternative.

There is nothing alternative about

this so-called ex-CIA analyst.

Some kind of, like, anonymous
Mike Scheuer:

"O(h, my goodness, such an
alternative point of view he's providing!"

It is, actually, furthering the same
agenda.

Or, Peter:

I mean, that was one of the things
that I was just simmering

with the last interview you had with
Ray McGovern.

I mean, you know...

and these guys,

these women, Samantha and these bad people

are making Obama do it...

and making Obama do it:

it's like, OK:

I understand you campaigned for Obama, OK?

Second time, not the first time.
[laughter]

Because the first time, everybody
was fucked up and stupid, OK?

Second time, all right?

Fool me twice and shame on me:

it's like shame on me a billion times?

It never was, "They made Bush do it."

"Bush did it."

"It was the Bush and Cheney..."

"these two were the entire face
of the Deep State."

"They were the forefront and did it."

To this day, this junk is coming out,

and that really pisses me off, Peter.

That's why I cannot respect,

I cannot promote this man.

He said... just, "They make Obama,"

"and then they pressured Obama
to do that,"

"and those crazies..." OK?

"They made Obama do this,"

"because he's such a great man,"

"he's such a nice man;"

"and then it blew up, and blowback."

I mean, I'm listening,

and I'm trying to say,

I'm trying to find a way

to not say it in an insulting way,

saying, "Maybe it's the senility."
Woo-doo-woo-doo-woo-doo. OK?

Either you are that,

or you are one really nasty,
nasty hypocrite

that is not shameful for one second:

because, put it in context:

"They made Obama do it."

I mean, this is what happens

in these pseudo-alternative media outlets.

They turn it into, make it into

some puppets in the forefront;

not the Operation Gladio B,

ot the Deep State.

They make it about personalities;

they make it about parties,

the war parties:

oh, yeah: that's about the Republicans,

the neocons, right? W

ell, the neocons did this,

the neoliberals are doing that,

and taking away from the real context,

from the real frame.

And anyhow, that's just my two cents,

and there is no such a thing
as blowback, OK?

In this case.

When we are looking at our perpetual wars,

what is happening today...

[holds up book: Nemesis: The Last Days of
the American Republic by Chalmers Johnson]

Who's that?

This is part of the Blowback trilogy

that was written by the late Professor
Chalmers Johnson.

Yes.

And I interviewed him many times,

and I have respect for him.

And his definition of the term "blowback"

is a little more narrow than the way
you're using it.

And it is the unexpected or
unintended result

of covert operations.

So, I take your point

that many of the divide-and-conquer
strategies

that are in play today

are not accidental,

they are intended,

and they don't qualify for the term
"blowback."

But I also believe that there are huge
American policy blunders

like the ones I cited

that have produced the consequences today.

And the comparison I would use

is the movies Hunger Games

and the books that have been written.

And the image of The Hunger Games

is this virtual reality zone

that is controlled from master control,

and they can change the arid desert
to a flooding river

just by flipping a switch.

And I don't believe that...

while I believe the US aspires

to the level of control that is depicted
in the fictional Hunger Games,

I don't think we have achieved it.

So that's where I parse things
a little bit differently;

but I don't dispute your basic
notion, Sibel,

that much of what is occurring

and much of what the US will say,

"Aw, shucks, we blew it!"

"Oh, we didn't expect that to happen!"

"Oh, somebody miscalculated!"

A lot of that is bullshit

that is intended to obscure

intentional programs and operations

that are in motion, even as we speak.

So I don't have a deep disagreement
with you,

except I do believe that there are
some instances

of blowback from policy blunders,

some of which were covert,

that fit the original definition

coined by Professor Johnson.

No, and I get your point, and I
agree with you.

And I am not applying this to everything.

I am applying this narrowly to
everything that is related

-- almost everything --

in the Middle East, in terror,

al-Qaeda, and everything.

The only honest policy paper that
I have ever seen, OK?

Period: the most honest one, is PNAC.

What was written for Project for a
New American Century.

I mean, if everyone...

they did all of it like this, so overt,

and so open and clear...

because there, it had nothing to do

with beating around the bushes.

They were very clear.

They said, "Our goal is this: imperialism,
OK?

"Soviet Union is gone, we have to be
the world power."

Just, I'm summing it up, simplifying it.

"And, to achieve it, we've gotta have
something huge happening here,"

"thousands of people dying,"

"so the stupid majority will line up
behind us,"

"achieve it for us, and make it possible."

I love that.

I mean, I love the honesty of that paper.

And that is the reality.

And the interesting thing is,

you never hear people talking about that

-- PNAC, OK? And that way,

in CNN or on NPR or on Salon,

they like to get those things
mumbo-jumbos,

you've got pages and pages

of some policy nobody understands.

There people

-- and these were the real, powerful
policy-makers in the policy arena --

they made it very clear:

I love it.

You put it like that, and everybody
understands.

But the mainstream media doesn't
have an appetite for that, OK?

You read that, it's very clear, OK?

"This is our policy, this is our modus
operandi."

"We want to be the world power."

Who's "we?" Is that you, or me,
or Guillermo?

Or is it the teacher who's working in
a high school?

Is it 97 percent of Americans?

No. By "we," they mean the Deep State.

They mean the fat cats.

They mean the military-industrial complex.

"We want to be the superpower, OK?"

"Colonize the world: take the most..."

"not leave anything for China, Russia:"

"we want to get everything."

"In order for it to happen,"

"we have to sacrifice 3,000, 5,000,
10,000, whatever here"

"-- and we'll do it. Because ends justify
the means."

For who? For those one-half a percent.
or 0.1 percent.

Very clear, very to-the-point,
very honest.

I wish they'd make more policies
like that,

and they talked about it like that.

Then we wouldn't even have anybody

coming on these issues

and make up things about,

"Well, as a former CIA analyst,"

"I must say that we really messed
that one up,"

"and it blew up in our face,"

"and we had a blowback, man."

You know, we did it in Afghanistan,
da-da-da-da-da.

Just like PNAC, put it out there:

and there is no room there for
second-guessing,

and saying maybe it didn't,

you know, they didn't mean that
it happened as a result:

it's out there for everyone to see.

And that is, that is the main premise
behind our...

all our foreign policies.

All our foreign policies

are based on that notion.

It's a power game, OK?

And again, it's not power

for the people of any of these nations;

it's the power game,

and it's the power for the Deep State,

saying "How we want to maintain
our power,"

"how we want to stay big and get bigger."

It has nothing to do with the people,

it has nothing to do with you and I.

Has nothing to do with 99 percent
of the Americans,

and the lives of 99 percent of Americans

doesn't mean a lick for those people.

If they... when they get...

if they feel the need that they
would do something

that would kill, not 3,000, 500,000
Americans?

They would do it in a second.

They would do it in a second, you know?

There's that country song by
Randy Travis, "Ants on a Log,"

and I'm saying, it'd be like,
"Ants on a log."

And if you listen to it,

even though it's a cliche,
country music rhyming,

when you have ants, the
colonies out there,

I don't think they even know that
humans exist.

They can't look up and see that.

They are busy in their own lives,

and suddenly some foot comes
on top of them

-- right, the shoes?

Bam! They are gone.

They don't even know: something
big hit them. OK?

Who knows how they are interpreting

of what killed half of their colony,

that it was something called "human?"

Because they can't really see us, OK?

This is how it is with the Deep State
and the people, OK?

The people: 99.999 percent of the people.

And that's the situation.

Sibel, you've once again demonstrated
your skill with languages,

because I don't speak country
music. [laughter]

But I do want to comment:

I do understand your frustration

with people like Ray McGovern.

My view is that because he served
in the CIA

and because he's willing to criticize
the agency that he once worked for

and some of our government policies,

that he has a legitimate point of view.

And I do think that he has added
some elements;

and I also think that in the recent
interview,

the focus there was on the victory
that he won over the State Department

when they brutally ejected him from
a speech

that Hillary Clinton was giving about
human rights.

And he basically was able

to successfully sue them

and get his name removed

from a "Be on the Lookout" list.

And I think that is worth reporting

and getting his comments on.

And I posted it, and I do not...

I don't disagree with you.

I think everybody is entitled

of having their opinion.

Now, on the other hand, to say it's
legitimate or not,

that is up to interpretation.

I do not find many of his opinions
legitimate,

but that's me.

And it's a subjective thing

based on what I see and how I see it.

So I would say, absolutely,

he's entitled of his opinion.

And one of the things that I have tried
to do with Boiling Frogs Post,

even the things that I disagree

-- it makes me gag: you know,
not a government gag. [laughter]

I really want to puke

-- because... aarrgh!

That's the reaction it gets out of me:

I publish it.

You know why?

Because there are people, Peter,

who agree with that;

or they like that;

or they think that is sound.

And they find it legitimate,

and that is perfectly fine.

And I want to provide that forum

where we have all those.

But personally, yes:

absolutely, he's entitled to his opinion.

I don't there's anything legitimate

about Ray McGovern's opinion.

I don't think he's respect-worthy.

I would not disrespect him,

but I would never give him respect,

especially after what he did.

And that is, again, the machine-intended
stuff.

[raises hand]

[laughs] Go ahead, James.

OK, thank you.

There is an extremely important point
there

that I think we should make the focus
of our next conversation,

because it would be extremely interesting

to bring it up with you specifically,
Sibel...

[claps hands] Yay!

Which is my take on this:

I am more and more,

increasingly, of the opinion

that anyone who is stupid enough
to sign up

for an admittedly disgusting, horrific,

atrocious organization like the CIA
in the first place

was either stupid at the time

or is lying now

about not being working for
that organization.

Signing up!

But we are talking to someone
who signed up for the FBI,

which was a disgusting, corrupt
institution since the very founding,

[laughter] so...

No, but that's absolutely true:

and I have done it in Classified Woman.

I said, "Doing that just proves so
much stupidity and being naive."

It's absolutely true.

Because, look:

I'll tell you about the...

when you go and they give you this paper

-- and you're signing at least
40 papers --

and the laws themselves are not cited, OK?

There are some numbers.
You are signing that,

"Based on 509732, you're not gonna
write a non-fiction without us..."

I signed those papers.

The eye-opener, the waking up:

absolutely. I absolutely agree.

I mean, I consider myself

completely ignorant, completely naive

-- completely naive --

uninformed, stupid,

for actually signing up.

I was offered jobs with the CIA
several times

during my university years.

I would have never even looked at
the organization.

FBI and CIA, very different, OK?

Police state FBI?

I'm not saying I highly regard FBI at all,

but you're looking at two different
breeds of...

and even within the CIA,

as despicable as it is,

there are a hierarchy of despicability.

There is a degree of it,

operatives being the most
despicable, disgusting, OK?

Serial killers.

And then you have the administrative
analysts,

and the secretaries,

and the bureaucrats: you know,
maybe they are naive.

I mean, that's...

so you cannot even put them
in the same basket

saying everybody is [xx].

There are different degrees
of despicability.

And I agree with that:

I completely agree with that.

If my daughter ever, ever comes to me

and says, "Mom, I'd consider..."

when she's 23, "I have two or
three languages:"

I would do everything in my power...

which, she won't:

because I'm already doing it with
her. [laughter]

But, I agree: and anybody who does,

and anybody who signs their
First Amendment rights

and works for the police state,

they do it, you know, economic
reasons or whatever:

I mean, still,

they have to be stupid to do that.

And I was, absolutely, stupid:

I will be the first to say that.

But I wouldn't go and play and say,

"Well, there are some really good
people in the FBI..."

no: it's a very stupid thing to do.

All right, Guillermo?

And I would add, what's worse than that:

what's worse than someone

like a McGovern or anyone else

who may have worked for the CIA

and now criticizes it,

what's worse than that is the
former CIA spy

who worked for, willingly worked for,

the CIA, NSA, DIA, so on and so forth,

and then says,

"Hey, they're great."

"They do good work."

"We should not bother with..."

Who are you talking about, Guillermo?

Oh, I dunno.

Who?

Just, you know, anyone. Not anyone in
particular. [laughter] But, you know...

CIA, ex-CIA, NSA contractor?

I can't think of any off the top
of my head...

oh, wait: there's one.

Well, ladies and gents...

At least one.

I think we have a good start

on our next Boiling Frogs Post Roundtable.

I certainly enjoyed this one.

I want to thank Guillermo, James, Sibel.

And I remain Peter B. Collins.
Thanks for viewing.

[Captions by "Adjuvant"]
[CC-BY 4.0]