Rob :
Where does Iran fit into this picture as well?
Glen : Well
they're not part of that Salafist Jihadi tendency, and so the United States
foments terrorism and sectarianism within the Muslim world to achieve its
geo-political advantages, or what it can salvage of its geo-political
posture. But, I want to say this"
Rob :
Wait, wait, wait: let me just get this clear:
"The US foments terrorism within the Arab world." How do they do that?
Glen : Well
that's what we see in Syria, this pure terror.
That is terrorism against the Syrian State, involving the United States
and Europe in an alliance with these backward Sunni powers, specifically Qatar
and Saudi Arabia, to destroy a secular regime - which is also Alawhite, a
branch or an offshoot of Shiaism. And so
the United States aggravates these sectarian conflicts in the Arab world, sides
with actually the most dangerous fundamentalist elements, in order achieve what
it sees as geo-political advantages.
That's why I want to get to the genesis of this: there was no Salafist
Jihadi network until the United States, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan created
it in the early 1980s in order to humiliate the Soviets in Afghanistan. They sank billions of dollars creating the
network that Al Qaeda then grew out of, seeking geo-political advantage through
an alliance with the most reactionary elements in the Muslim world. And then of course we saw the blowback that
resulted from that. Then they become hysterical and desperate with the advent
of the Arab Spring.
Rob :
Wait; describe the blowback. What's the
blowback?
Glen : The
blowback is 9/11. The blowback is Al
Qaeda. Now, the United States of course
then has an opportunity, having created this monster -- that is, they didn't
create Muslim fundamentalism, but they created the international network -- but,
having done that, then they used the Frankenstein that they have breathed such
life into as a pretext for their War on Terror.
But the contradictions of course still multiply. Then, with the Arab Spring, they pump new
life into that older alliance, and we
see an even closer operational relationship between the United States and these
Jihadis, and through their benefactors, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, in the present
day -- most notably with the assault on Syria.
Rob : Now,
wait, I just want to get this clear now.
You're saying that the US and Saudi Arabia in particular, and possibly
Europe, have tapped the old connection with fundamentalist Muslims, that they
started with Al Qaeda and what have you, and they are now using that same
approach for the Arab Spring?
Glen: Sure, that's - to their foot
soldiers - had to be, for the assault on Libya.
The United States had the overwhelming air power through NATO, but it
didn't have soldiers on the ground! It
didn't have proxies on the ground outside of these Salafist Muslim
fundamentalists! And at the core of that
were the same Qaeda affiliated forces that Gaddafi had been fighting since
their armed insurrection in 1998 and 1999.
The military commander of the so-called "rebels" in Tripoli was a guy
who was actually captured by -- renditioned by - the CIA in Thailand and
tortured by the Americans, and then delivered to Gaddafi, who then (in I
believe it was 2008) was released by Gaddafi in an effort to come to a truce
with those forces. The United States had
no one to push its agenda on the ground in Libya except them, and so developed
even stronger ties with this new wave of collaboration between the Americans,
those Salafists, and their backers in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Those people almost immediately, the Libyans
alone sent six hundred of their fighters into Syria. And Qatar and Saudi Arabia are gathering them
from all over the world, just rejuvenating the Global Jihadi Network, just as
they started in 1980 for this new offensive against Syria, and the United
States thinks it's going to be able to control that. The events surrounding the death of the Libyan
ambassador show that it cannot control it.
Susan Rice, when she went on, I guess it was "Meet the Press," and lied
about the actual nature of the attack, was trying to mask the US alliance with
these Jihadi forces. Because if the
American people understood who their government is in bed with in Libya and in
Syria, they would rebel across the political spectrum against the United States
policy in the Muslim world.
Rob : Now,
you've described Susan Rice as one of the most bellicose,
bomb-at-the-drop-of-a-hat, Africa-bashing professional servants of power in
Washington. You've said that she is "a
madwoman demanding blockades and airstrikes against Sudan, invasion of Somalia,
embargoes on little Eritrea, regime change in Libya." It sounds to me like she, if she was a
Republican, people like John McCain and all the Republicans who are going after
her, would love her!
Glen : And
they should! She was making these
demands for air strikes and blockades on Sudan back in 2006 when there was a
Republican administration. She was at
the service of Bush's aggressive foreign policy -- in fact more bellicose than
Bush in regard to African issues -- back then.
And, there is something I didn't mention in that article, and I think
it's the greatest crime of all: it is
Susan Rice who has been blocking, at the United Nations, the release of the
last two reports from the UN, documenting the role of Uganda and Rwanda, who
are the United States' two main allies - military allies - the US's two biggest
henchmen in Africa - these UN reports document how they are complicit, in fact
they are the main actors, in the Genocide in the Congo that has killed six
million people. And if Rwanda and Uganda
are the main actors in this genocide, that means that the United States is the
main actor in the genocide in Congo, and Susan Rice is a major player in
covering up that crime.
Rob : So
it sounds like she's a Democratic John Bolton, maybe worse.
Glen : I
think she's the meanest dog in town.
This woman is rabid! She makes
Condoleeza Rice seem like a sweet academic.
Rob :
Rabid. Ok. And do you think she's got a shot at getting
the appointment to replace Hilary?
Glen : I hope not.
Now, of course, US policy does not change based upon who the Secretary
of State is. We, at Black Agenda Report,
of course dread Susan Rice being the Secretary of State, because that puts one
more high profile black American in a position of being the Executioner in
Chief of the world, and that's very bad for the good name of African
Americans. But whoever they put in
charge will just continue the US policy.
We certainly don't want that to be in blackface.
Rob :
Well, it makes me think of Clarence Thomas.
He's a guy who was handed a lot of power, and he certainly wielded it to
serve the 1% and the Military Industrial Complex.
Glen :
Yeah, but Clarence Thomas was of course appointed by Republicans, and that
makes him one step removed, so to speak.
This is a Democratic administration with a black president supported
wholeheartedly by the vast majority of Black people in this country. And so I can't imagine how people in the
world will not associate these crimes by Obama and by Rice (Susan Rice) as
being the product somehow of the black policy in the United States, and that is
profoundly disturbing to contemplate.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
