I've been staying out of most world events as of
late, preferring to watch things unfold silently as there are so many that seem
to have all of the answers. I don't claim to have any answers, but I sure do
have a lot of questions. There is a good chance that many of you have the same
questions that I have. Sometimes, the questions are more important than the
answers. In this 21 st Century, there are so many of our leaders that
will give us the answers to any questions we ask, they just aren't the right
answers. In fact, they lie continuously.
One question I have is why do we support a
collection of fundamentalist Islamic States like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain
and the UAE with their Wahhabi and Salafi militant Muslim sects? According to
the "official" 9/11 explanation, all of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia
and were members of the extremist Wahhabi Muslim sect. Just like the majority
of al-Qaeda.
In the recent fighting in Syria, the so-called "rebels"
are made up of mostly non-Syrian Salafi and Wahhabi extremists. They also have
support from Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE and other nations that make up the
Gulf Cooperation Council with help from Turkey, United Kingdom, Israel and France.
Why put extremists in a country that was ruled by a moderate Alawite?
The so-called civil war in Mali is presumably being
caused by forces loyal to al-Qaeda; in fact, they gave it the name al-Qaeda in
the Maghreb (AQIM). French forces have responded to this "threat" by sending in
3,500 ground troops courtesy of the United States Military Airlift Command. Mali,
which used to be a French Colony, has always had trouble with the Tuareg tribe
in the north of that country. Former Libyan leader Mohamar Gadhafi employed
many of these people in his army. When we engineered the "Libyan Spring" the
Tuareg's fled the country because they lost their employment and because "freedom
fighters" were executing anyone of color at the time. They left with
storehouses of arms and ammunition, a perfect beginning to finally wrest Northern
Mali away from the rest of the country, something they have been trying to do
for hundreds of years. Why is this an American interest? Why are we involved
transporting French troops? Who gave authorization for our military to use our tax
dollars to transport these French troops?
We saw what the blow-back led to in Libya. Not only was
our Envoy and three other Americans killed and our compound burned out, but the
country is separated into different fiefdoms with various strongholds led by
different sects. Who is telling us the truth about what is going on over there?
From the reports I'm reading about the insurrection in Mali from Global
Research and others, this is an imperialist expansion for resources by the
French.
The rest of Africa is just as perplexing. We have
American military officers embedded with almost every army in every country on
the continent. The continent is rich in mineral and metal deposits as well as
oil and natural gas. Didn't we learn from the debacle in Iraq that we just can't
go in and grab resources? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to buy the oil?
Speaking of Iraq, American's still don't understand
that this was an illegal and immoral war. John "Bomb Bomb Iran" McCain grilled Chuck Hagel about his opposition to
the surge. Hagel told them it resulted in needless American deaths. I'm
surprised he didn't bring up the fact that at about the same time the surge was
"working", the Sunni's started getting paid not to fight the Americans. Maybe
it was just a coincidence (if you believe in coincidences). It's really amazing
that so many people in the U.S. never read the Downing Street Memo or realize
that Bush and company planned on invading Iraq way before 9/11. Ignorance is
bliss, so they say. Ignorance is frustrating, especially when it's willful
ignorance or should I say feigned ignorance.
There are a lot of supposedly ignorant Americans.
Either they are ignorant or they just don't have the backbone or the
wherewithal to question authority in any shape or manner anymore. Seems to me
that one of the greatest generations this nation ever witnessed was the one
that took to the streets and protested the senseless death and carnage we rained
down on Southeast Asia. While many in that generation forgot the effectiveness of
grassroots protests and organization, the U.S. Government never forgot the
lessons of that era. It dawned on them much too late in that war that the media
was
the message. Since then, they have incrementally gained total control
of the American media.
The people in politics and the media like to call it
"spin". That's another way to say propaganda without offending anyone's
sensibilities. They call torture "enhanced interrogation". They call those who
fight against Western domination and imperialism "insurgents". When they resort
to violence against out interests they are called "terrorists". When they act
on our behalf they are called "freedom fighters". The government is very good
at what they do.
Now that France has claimed victory in Mali, what
will they do next? Will they keep a contingent of French Forces in that country
to keep the peace? Will French firms move in and exploit the mineral and
petroleum reserves there? What do you think?
Our peace-loving ally Israel reportedly bombed a
Syrian facility outside of Damascus Wednesday. It was ostensibly done to stop
Syria from transferring biological or nerve agent munitions to Hezbollah. With
Syria fighting for its very survival, why would they start shipping their
weapons out of the country? Does that make any sense? Yet, that was the reason
given by the Israeli's for the attack. They are also reportedly deathly afraid that
these weapons will fall into the jihadist's rebels hands.
"Israel has
publicly warned that it would take military action to prevent the Syrian
regime's chemical weapons falling into the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon or
"global jihadists" fighting inside Syria. Israeli military
intelligence is said to be monitoring the area round the clock via satellite
for possible convoys carrying weapons." Guardian
30 Jan 2013
So why was the attack described as an attack on a
convoy by the media in the U.S.? This situation makes Russia nervous about the
Israeli attack.
"If this
information is confirmed, then we are dealing with unprovoked attacks on
targets on the territory of a sovereign country, which blatantly violates the
UN charter and is unacceptable, no matter the motives to justify it," the
Russian foreign ministry said in a statement on Thursday.' Guardian
31 Jan 2013
Meanwhile, Israel has suffered a defeat in the UN
where a United Nations Commission has declared that the settlements in the West
Bank are illegal and that the approximately 500,000 Jewish settlers should
leave or face possible war crimes charges. Where was the coverage of that
little tidbit in the U.S. Press?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
6
6
3
