It did not take long for ISIS to come back with some new lies to add to the long list of old ones. The most recent ISIS lie had been its ongoing negotiations with Jordan for the release of some terrorists in Jordanian jail in exchange for the release of a Jordanian pilot held by ISIS. The lie was that ISIS had already executed that pilot by burning him to death around New Year's Day. When the video of that horrific murder was disclosed, Jordan reacted by carrying out the death sentence previously imposed by Jordanian courts on some ISIS terrorists and by launching major air strikes against ISIS targets in Syria.
That brought out the latest lie. ISIS told the world today that the Jordanian planes killed an American hostage in the attack. To be clear, according to ISIS, none of the terrorists were killed, just the American hostage. This is a clear lie.
It is almost impossible that a hostage would be killed while her captors would not. Further, according to ISIS, the bombing occurred on the outskirts of Raqaa, the ISIS capital, but that is not where the Jordanians struck ISIS yesterday.
So why is ISIS telling this tale? First of all, ISIS wants to drive a wedge between the USA and Jordan by claiming that the Jordanians killed an American hostage who surely died at the hands of ISIS. Second, and more important, ISIS needs to gain some sort of equivalency between itself and the Jordanians with regard to the death of hostages. The entire world has seen the murder of the Jordanian pilot, and the reaction must not have been the one that ISIS expected. ISIS probably assumed that Jordan would follow the American lead and just lament the murder while taking little or not action against ISIS. Instead, King Abdullah and his government has taken strong action aimed at ISIS and the world has applauded. That puts ISIS in a position where they want to make it seems as if Jordan kills hostages too.
Of course, it is one thing to kill a hostage by dousing him in gasoline and lighting it on fire (as ISIS did) and accidentally killing a hostage being held at a military base that is under attack (as ISIS claims Jordan did.) Nevertheless, we all should realize that ISIS is just lying.
That brought out the latest lie. ISIS told the world today that the Jordanian planes killed an American hostage in the attack. To be clear, according to ISIS, none of the terrorists were killed, just the American hostage. This is a clear lie.
It is almost impossible that a hostage would be killed while her captors would not. Further, according to ISIS, the bombing occurred on the outskirts of Raqaa, the ISIS capital, but that is not where the Jordanians struck ISIS yesterday.
So why is ISIS telling this tale? First of all, ISIS wants to drive a wedge between the USA and Jordan by claiming that the Jordanians killed an American hostage who surely died at the hands of ISIS. Second, and more important, ISIS needs to gain some sort of equivalency between itself and the Jordanians with regard to the death of hostages. The entire world has seen the murder of the Jordanian pilot, and the reaction must not have been the one that ISIS expected. ISIS probably assumed that Jordan would follow the American lead and just lament the murder while taking little or not action against ISIS. Instead, King Abdullah and his government has taken strong action aimed at ISIS and the world has applauded. That puts ISIS in a position where they want to make it seems as if Jordan kills hostages too.
Of course, it is one thing to kill a hostage by dousing him in gasoline and lighting it on fire (as ISIS did) and accidentally killing a hostage being held at a military base that is under attack (as ISIS claims Jordan did.) Nevertheless, we all should realize that ISIS is just lying.
1 comment:
What you say is certainly plausible if rationality is assumed. With Isis, however, I think you can't make that assumption. Their value system is so corrupt and different from our own, that trying to deduce what is driving any particular statement or action on its part is not likely to be productive and could easily be completely wrong.
Post a Comment