It is time to overthrow our own US oligarchs....
When we mature enough as human beings to think rationally and to think for ourselves, we will become aware of the river of bullshit we swim in... We will then stop reacting like children every time something happens, no longer jumping every time we hear a loud noise, like that emanating constantly from the so-called "nightly news." Of course western elites are secretly building radical Islam, what do you think that we have been doing in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Bosnia and Pakistan and a dozen other places for the past fourty years? The people who are now building-up radical groups and governments, wherever they can, learned from their fathers, who secretly built-up the Third Reich, Hamas..., or from their grandfathers, who financed the rise of the Soviet Union.....
The Western elites have conducted a secret inter-generational war against all of us since before most of us were even born. They call their latest little creation of brown-skinned scary men, "Islamists." The following report pursues the new paradigm that we are being spoon-fed--increasing the fear of the "Islamist" bogeyman, in order to increase popular support for extreme military measures to wipe them all out, including anyone who secretly harbors Islamist thoughts....
Western Elites still building up Islam...?
It is clear that what is currently taking place in Tunisia is not a popular revolution. There were no clear demands from the demonstrators, there was no organized opposition leading the masses, and even Islamic voices have so far been silent. [The fact that there was no full scale revolution] is a positive sign…so what actually happened, and led to President Ben Ali going into exile? Of course, this pressing question will continue to be asked during the coming phase, and may take a long time to answer, considering that we are now facing conflicting information, and Tunisia remains a country that is somewhat ‘closed’ towards almost all of the Arab world, and its media. Our satellite channels seemed uninterested in reporting genuine facts. – India’s Issy
Dominant Social Theme: The Muslims are coming and must be confronted. Never mind that we provide the funding....
Free-Market Analysis: Is the war on terror a success? The Anglo-American elite needs an enemy if the authoritarianism that is rising in the West is to continue – because despotism (and globalism) is more easily created when there is an outside enemy. But fighting against 100 Al-Qaeda/Al-CIAda... soldiers in Afghanistan is not anybody’s idea of a substantive threat. And the Taliban are evidently and obviously fighting an occupying force.
What if the powers-that-be had decided to do what they could to expand the Muslim threat – and thus expand (in the Western mind anyway) the specter of resurgent, militant Islam? A cynical idea isn’t it, dear reader. It is merely speculation, but there are reasons to explore it further. Bear with us.
Just yesterday, the Bell offered an article that was somewhat skeptical of the “Jasmine Revolution” playing out in Tunisia. Since we presented our speculation others have weighed in (in the Blogosphere) with even more cynical perspectives. There have been reports that the Tunisian revolution was actually a CIA-related operation related to securing oil supplies for the US and furthering its strategic dominance in terms of the larger “great game.”
We believe such explanations are somewhat overwrought. The CIA does not call every tune. Oil in fact is present everywhere on earth and need not be secured by the West via revolution. The Tunisians evidently and obviously were not well-disposed to their (former) iron-handed ruler. And yet … revolutions can be manipulated and often are. In fact, Tunisia’s now-deposed president President Zine al-Abedine Ben Ali was firmly anti-Muslim and thus the Tunisian revolution seems to fit into a larger pattern of further Muslim-ifcation of that part of the world.
Is it a deliberate pattern? We would argue it might be, and that it is one that now serves the purposes of Western powers-that-be. The Anglosphere is notoriously unsentimental when it comes to overthrowing allies in pursuit of its large one-world objectives. Those who have ruled with America’s backing for decades may suddenly they are unsupported in their further prospects.
Where is the evidence? Again, we note the pattern. In the strife-torn West African nation of Ivory Coast (Côte d’Ivoire) the West is supporting Alassane Ouattara, a former prime minister, banker and leader of the opposition over incumbent president, Laurent Gbagbo. Ouattara is Muslim; Gbagbo is Christian. The West advocates for the Muslim-linked faction over the Christian one.
Then there is the referendum in the Sudan, one of Africa’s largest states and most Northern ones. The referendum, being conducted on the auspices of the United Nations, aims to split the country, creating a predominantly Muslim Northern Sudan. According to CNN, President Omar al-Bashir has reportedly said that if Southern Sudan votes in favor of separation, “sharia will become the main source of Sudan’s Constitution, Islam the state religion and Arabic the official language.” The West, under the auspices of the UN, is in the process of creating a fundamentalist Muslim state. Finally, there is the sorry saga of the War in Kosovo in which the West backed Albanian Muslims over Serbian Christians.
All three of these examples might be termed “simplistic” in that there were (and are) many complexities involved in these confrontations that have nothing to do with religious affiliation. Nonetheless – inarguably – on three separate occasions, Western powers-that-be have thrown their weight behind Islam. Coincidence?
There is more to support the idea that the Anglosphere is covertly supporting resurgent Islam. The West has surely manipulated the price of oil to enrich Muslim countries for decades. And in return, Saudi Arabia has first created and then funded Wahhabism, a fierce fundamental strain of Islam that has found fertile soil in the Afghan-Pakistan region and in North Africa. Thus, we seem to see again that the West is funding the very enemies its leaders claim to be fighting against.
Dubai and the Arab Emirates should be mentioned within this paradigm. These Western-affiliated, Muslim countries have in our view been positioned to provide a “middle ground” between Islam and the West. They represent the fruition of an ongoing Hegelian dialectic – the model for a Westernized Islam. Al Jazeera is funded out of another tiny, Western-centric country, Qatar, and we have noted that initially Al Jazeera was staffed by BBC journos; Al Jazeera, far from being a radical Islamic mouthpiece, is in a sense another Western-controlled news outlet. You can see a previous article here:
Those in the West, even close mainstream observers of the ongoing “war on terror,” live with this cognitive dissonance without showing much consciousness of it – which is strange itself. You would think those with degrees and pedigrees in this area would ask themselves why the West is supporting the world’s leading promoters of militant Islam all the while proclaiming undying resistance to “terrorists.”
The Western power elite always utilizes the Hegelian dialectic – the creation of two sides to an argument so that the resolution is resolved as much as possible on elite terms. But while most observers of the elite believe the dialectic applies to rhetoric, the facts-on-the-ground show us clearly that the dialectic is applied to conflict as well. Thus, there is significant evidence that Wall Street funded the “Red” faction of the Russian revolution that led to the formation of the USSR and the USSR in turn helped fund the creation of Communist China.
It is now well-acknowledged that Operation Gladio in Europe (a CIA black ops) produced a slew of violent incidents and rising fear among Western middle classes that the “Red Plague” was spreading. This was no doubt helpful in the creation of the meme of a “united Europe” that would provide an antidote to violence.
Of course today Europe is “united” – but that unification only seems to spawned yet more violence – and this is possibly a larger problem. Wars and revolution in the Internet era are not nearly so controllable as they once were. The risk is that having begun the conflagration and now perhaps encouraging its growth, the elite will end up burning itself, though how badly remains to be seen.
Conclusion: We are proposing a new stage in the manipulated war on terror. Having built up the Middle East through enormous cash infusions, the Anglosphere is continually expanding the role of fundamental Islam and may even be prepared to overthrow old and trusted allies to do so. The war on terror so far has not proven very terrible (except to Afghan and Iraqi citizens) but if the Jasmine revolution “spreads” throughout the Middle East, resurgent, fundamentalist Islam may indeed become a reality. All this is highly speculative of course and merely an exercise analyzing elite promotions. The reality may be far more mundane – and simply the result of current events with no additional resonance or meaning. And yet …
Have we already forgotten the cost of Bush/Cheney, the Inside Job of 9/11...and the Odious White House Murder INC, in the Levant and Worldwide....?
So far, all of Obama's answers have been re-runs of previously failed policies, seemingly dedicated to re-fighting all the lost political battles of the past. Will this new batch of "conservatives" and ultra-right-wing imbeciles that we have just elected be the equivalent of the crowd that was swept into office on Reagan's coattails? For those who remember, it was Reagan's and his "conservative revolution" and their war infamous "supply-side economics" (a call for the wealthy to loot the national treasury) that have brought our economy to the point of ruin. They started the actual "war against terrorism" as a secret low-level war against Communism in Afghanistan. They started secret little wars in at least a dozen other countries under the premise of looking for an imaginary link between Russia and "international terrorism" (even though there was no link, or even such a thing as an organized "international force" for terror, then, or now), giving justification for every nut with a grievance against the United States to look for ways to fight against the secret wars. Each president since Reagan has expanded the little secret wars wherever they could not get their way legally. All of this directly caused the next stage in the war against terror which we had started, the attack upon the American Homeland.
US elections big win for Israeli right...
By Rachelle Marshall
Now we have come full circle, with an angry "Tea Bag" boost to the reactionary forces bringing us a new wave of reactionary Republican congressmen, reactionaries who always side with Israel. Is the People's memory so short that they have already forgotten the cost of Bush/Cheney? Remember how we all complained about something called the "Israel Lobby," controlling Congress, when they led us into Iraq without a valid earthly reason? If this is just another layer of Zionist crud, then Israel will now have an even greater hold on our government.
This Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) seems to be owned completely by the lobby. She (along with Mr. Berman, whom she replaces) was a leading force in the popularly defeated scheme to pass the "Iran War resolution" and the foul attempt to create a naval blockade of Iran. The American destabilization plan now unfolding in Israel's neighborhood is putting the fear of "Islamization" into more and more people, making it more likely that, when push comes to shove, the American people will willingly swallow another war for Israel.
When there is no limit to what you will do to force the world to accept your demands, then it becomes possible to pull-off an audacious attempt to take the world by force. This is what we are seeing. Is this what we are willing to accept?
Israeli soldiers in Hebron’s occupied Old City stop a Palestinian family on its way to visit relatives for the Eid al-Adha holiday, Nov. 17, 2010.
Not since 9/11 has an event in the U.S. given Israel’s far-right leaders as much to cheer about as did the 2010 mid-term elections. The destruction of the World Trade Center by Muslim extremists in 2001 united former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush in a “war on terror” aimed as much at Hamas and Hezbollah as at violent religious extremists. It also gave the Bush administration an excuse to invade Iraq—Israel’s principal enemy at the time.
Two days after the Republicans’ sweeping victory last November, Knesset member Danny Danon predicted it would result in greater resistance by Congress to White House pressure on Israel. “The huge influx of newly elected representatives and senators to Washington,” Danon said, “includes strong friends of Israel who will put the brakes on the consistently dubious, sometimes dangerous policies of President Obama these past two years.” Ari Fleischer, White House spokesman under George W. Bush, noted gleefully that “The takeover of the House by Republicans is great news for Israel and her supporters. The House leadership and almost every GOP member is rock-solid behind Israel.”
Such news may not be good for America, however. In a November speech to the Jewish Federation of North America, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu urged the U.S. not to rule out military action if Iran fails to halt its nuclear activities, and implied that Israel would do so if international sanctions failed. An Israeli attack on Iran would be certain to have strong backing from the recently augmented pro-Israel wing of Congress, and as Israel’s chief arms supplier, the U.S. could find itself embroiled in war against yet a third Muslim country.
Right-wing zealots had even more reason to celebrate with the rise of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) to head the powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee. Ros-Lehtinen is a spokesperson for Israeli nationalists, and obsessive in her hostility to the Palestinians. Democrat Howard Berman, whom she is replacing, was a steadfast supporter of Israel but unlike Ros-Lehtinen he did not urge that all PLO representatives be expelled from the U.S., and all funding for the Palestinian Authority be cut off, until Palestinians agreed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Prime Minister Netanyahu wasted no time taking advantage of the election results. Within days of the Republican victory his government ordered the demolition of 88 more Palestinian homes in Arab East Jerusalem’s Silwan neighborhood, and announced plans to build 320 new units in the city’s Ramot section and 1,000 in Har Homa. All are in an area of the West Bank Israel captured from Jordan in 1967 and annexed in violation of international law. The Israelis now claim Har Homa is part of Jerusalem; to the rest of the world it is an illegal settlement.
When Israel began construction on the site during Netanyahu’s first term as prime minister in the 1990s the U.S. raised a strong protest. This time the administration’s response was muted. “We were deeply disappointed by the announcement,” said State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley. “It is counterproductive to our efforts to resume direct negotiations.” But he referred to Har Homa’s location as one of the “sensitive areas of East Jerusalem,” rather than the occupied West Bank. Netanyahu’s response was defiant. “Jerusalem is not a settlement,” he said, “Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel.”
It has long been evident that Netanyahu wants to expand the Jewish population in the West Bank and East Jerusalem far more than he wants peace. But instead of condemning the Israeli leader’s intransigence and threatening to end U.S. support, Obama caved in. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated America’s “unshakable” commitment to Israel, and in an 8-hour session with Netanyahu reached a tentative agreement that slowed but did not stop further settlement expansion.
In exchange for a mere 90-day “partial” halt, the U.S. would provide Israel with $3 billion worth of F-25 attack jets, make no further demands for a settlement freeze, and veto all U.N. resolutions critical of Israel as well as any attempt by the Palestinians to gain U.N. support for a declaration of statehood. Israel will therefore receive a payoff of $1 billion a month for the brief three months it refrains from building more settlements—money that might have been spent putting Americans back to work, rebuilding roads and bridges, caring for the elderly poor, or reducing class size in cash-strapped school districts.
A significant provision of the agreement excludes East Jerusalem from the proposed freeze, giving Israel a free hand to continue replacing the Arab population with Jews in a section of the city the Palestinians intend to be their future capital. The proposal amounted to a sell-out of the Palestinians, and President Mahmoud Abbas accordingly rejected it. He insisted that the moratorium apply to all Palestinian territories before he would resume negotiations. Netanyahu accepted Obama’s gift package only on condition that his cabinet approve, and that Obama put its terms in writing. Congress will see to it that the Israelis will receive its benefits regardless of their decision.
The Knesset gave Obama’s peace efforts a further battering when it voted in late November to require a national referendum before any Israeli territory could be ceded. This will make it almost impossible to include the return of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem as part of a peace agreement. It will also be more difficult to include a trade-off of land within Israel for territory in the West Bank.
Marketing to Americans
Afghan children look on behind barbed wire at the site of a suicide attack near Camp Julien, in the ruins of the former Afhan Royal Palace in Kabul, Nov. 12, 2010.
Settlers meanwhile had made sure that construction would resume at a greater rate than ever when the previous freeze expired. According to Peace Now, between Sept. 26 and Nov. 15 construction was begun on 1,649 homes in 69 separate settlements, and plans made for hundreds more. Many of them will have a market in the U.S. A Nov. 7 real estate exposition in New York City put on by the Jewish Agency advertised property for sale in “Israel” that is in fact located in the illegal West Bank settlement of Efrat.
The mayor of Efrat described his community as “built on a high standard, with beautiful homes, gardens, playgrounds, and winning educational institutions.” He did not tell prospective buyers that Efrat is located on land stolen from the Palestinian village of al-Khadar, or that water for the gardens was diverted from Palestinian farmlands—land on which Efrat regularly dumps its raw sewage.
Such disconnects between Israel’s image and the reality of its occupation are parallelled by the mainstream media’s failure to report on the increasing violence directed at Palestinians and aimed at driving them off their land. Palestinian officials reported that at least 277 cases of settler violence took place between August and October. Settlers encroach on Palestinian land, attack Palestinian farmers, poison livestock and crops, and burn schools and mosques. During the October harvest they destroyed thousands of olive trees. The Israeli army seldom intervenes.
Palestinian children are not spared. Many have been beaten by settlers, and those caught throwing stones, no matter how young, are arrested and often beaten on the way to jail. According to the Israeli human rights organizations B’Tselem and HaMoked, children in detention centers are pressured to become informers and “subject to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.” In one such case two young boys, Muhammad Mukhalmer and Muhammad Radwan, were locked naked in a prison bathroom for two days with the air conditioner on. “The most awful thing that happened was when soldiers went to the bathroom they peed on us,” one of the boys reported.
Palestinians steadfastly resisting Israeli oppression are finding allies among Israelis. Joel Beinin, a professor of Middle East history at Stanford University, recently returned from Israel, where he gathered material on a small but growing resistance movement composed of young Israelis and Palestinians dedicated to nonviolence. Beinin, whose parents live in Israel, said in a recent talk in Palo Alto, California, that the new movement aims at protesting not only the separation barrier but also home demolitions and the takeover of Palestinian land by settlers.
The settlers’ freedom from government restraint, and the protection they get from the army, reflect the social change that is taking place in Israel, Beinin said. Religious Zionists now make up the army’s officer corps, and many of the reserve units are based inside the settlement blocs. The army has even aided developers by routing the separation wall through Palestinian villages in order to create sites for new settlements.
Israel’s campaign of repression against peaceful protestors has become increasingly harsh. IDF soldiers regularly raid Bil’in, Ni’ilin, Budrus, and Jayyous at night, breaking into homes and arresting hundreds of suspected demonstrators. At the weekly protests soldiers now attack Israelis as well as Palestinians with tear gas, rubber bullets, and occasionally live ammunition. Beinin took part in the protests during his visit, and admitted, “I was frankly terrified.”
The “new protest generation” Beinin described differs from the old in including Palestinian women as well as men and combining various strands of the Israeli peace movement, including animal rights supporters and environmentalists. After witnessing the spirit of equality that permeates the new protest movement, Beinin said he was more convinced than ever that the two sides can live together in peace if they do so as equals.
That prospect has dimmed for the time being, however, with an American president willing to appease Israel’s far right leadership and a Congress that wholeheartedly supports that leadership. The irony is that by providing Israel’s right-wing government with unconditional financial and diplomatic support, Obama and Congress may be endangering the security of both Israelis and Americans. The army’s repression of peaceful demonstrations, and its sweeping arrests of their organizers take out of action the moderate Palestinians who favor peaceful coexistence with Israel, and leave in their place a vacuum to be filled by extremists.
Afghanistan Withdrawal Postponed
The strategy the U.S. is pursuing in Afghanistan is similarly discouraging the rise of moderates and certain to prolong the conflict. Under pressure from Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Obama has postponed the withdrawal of combat forces until 2014, with tens of thousands of soldiers remaining there indefinitely to provide training to the Afghan army and “economic, cultural and development support.” The Taliban immediately responded that there would be no peace negotiations while any foreign troops remained. Afghans, a Taliban spokesman said, “are not ready to tolerate foreign invasion and occupation of their country.”
Meanwhile, Petraeus has put into effect a strategy called “capture and kill,’” which is intended, in Obama’s words, “to break the Taliban’s momentum and deprive insurgents of their strongholds.” In practice it is being used to pick off the Taliban’s mid-level leaders, such as mayors, bookkeepers, and judges, regardless of the fact that such administrators are more likely than hardened fighters to accept reconciliation.
In line with the new strategy the military has sharply increased the number of drone attacks and pre-dawn house raids. The Pentagon reported that in one 90-day period this fall Special Operations Forces killed or captured 388 Taliban leaders, killed 968 insurgents, and captured 2,477. The number of civilian casualties was not reported. President Hamid Karzai complained bitterly in mid-November that such actions were intensifying the insurgency, and he urged that U.S. troops stay off the roads and out of Afghan homes.
Jeremy Scahill, writing in the Nov. 18 issue of The Nation, described how night raids undermine NATO’s stated aim of winning over low-level Taliban members. Scahill cited the killing of Mullah Sahib Jan, an imam and religious adviser to the government reconciliation commission, who was preaching to the Taliban in Logar province and encouraging them to come to the government and lay down their arms. Jan was killed on Jan. 14 in a pre-dawn raid by Special Operations Forces. According to his son Haidar, soldiers broke down the doors, roused the sleeping family, and blindfolded and handcuffed the women as well as the men. “They were beating us with both weapons and their hands,” Haidar said. Much of the family’s property was destroyed during the raid, and at the end of it Jan’s bullet-riddled body lay in the yard.
The head of Logar’s reconciliation commission, Mohammed Anwar, said Jan had been working with them for months as a religious adviser. “Only the U.S. soldiers know why they killed Sahib Jan,” Anwar said. “We are trying to build bridges between the Taliban and the government. How can we encourage reconciliation in good faith in the face of these American raids against the very people who agree to disarm?”
Some members of the Obama administration are skeptical of the policy of eliminating mid-level Taliban leaders. “Are they being replaced by guys less beholden to the senior leaders in Pakistan?” a White House official asked. If so, he said, in any future peace talks, “it’s possible that the leaders at the top could not deliver.” Doubts exist even within the military. A current assessment by the Pentagon acknowledges that security has deteriorated and resistance has increased this year because of NATO’s more aggressive military operations. A former CIA analyst said recent statements about progress reminded him of claims by the Russians before they withdrew from Afghanistan in 1988.
Like the American generals who boasted of body counts to justify sending more troops to Vietnam, Petraeus’ strategy is prolonging a war that is certain either to lead to humiliating defeat for the U.S. or doom it to endless conflict. America’s military ventures of the past nine years already have cost America thousands of lives and more than a trillion dollars, yet have not enhanced our national security. It is today more urgent than ever that Obama abandon policies that have made America an object of hatred and devote himself to pursuing peace in the Middle East and a return to sanity at home—both of which have suffered setbacks one can only hope are temporary....