Posts Tagged ‘Middle East’

Earlier this week, I read in the USA Today that SecState Hillary Clinton said something to the effect that she couldn’t believe that the people in Lybia would attack the U.S. embassies because “we helped these people.”  Well, no shit, Sherlock!  Does everyone forget Osama bin Laden?  It doesn’t matter what the pundits and politicians say – because if we were honest, it’s all the same.  They condemn the attacks and promise swift retribution, but in the end, it’s more of the back alley deals, money going to places we don’t know, and alliances bought at our expense.

If Lybia should teach us anything, it should be this: The Middle East has proven time and time again that it is a volatile battleground.  We’re not talking of the same culture as exemplified here in the States; we are talking of a (for the most part) a third-world region.  Now I am not saying that there are no religious lunatics out there, but there are still more who resent America’s presence – of propping up dictators and despots.  Look at Mubarak.  We gave him billions of dollars so he could have a plethora of mansions, and all the while his people lived in poverty.

We claim that we are “pro-Israel”, but in reality, we give more to Israel’s enemies than we give to Israel herself.  What’s wrong with this picture?  Jesus said, “when you see the enemies of Israel surrounding her, run for the hills!”  And I believe we are seeing that prophecy come to fruition.

In case you forgot about the October Surprise, click here.

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
September 17, 2012

The highly provocative anti-Muslim video “trailer” researchers claim is the handiwork of the Islamophobic provocateurs Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer and a resurgent neocon network is responsible for a new round of violent protests in the Middle East.

From the nation with the world’s largest Muslim population, Indonesia, to Afghanistan, new protests broke out on Monday. Indonesian police fired teargas and water cannon to disperse demonstrators outside the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, while in Kabul, Afghanistan, thousands of Muslims took to the streets and set fire to cars and shops and threw stones at police. Protesters also clashed with police in Pakistan and the Philippines on Monday.

Last week, following the death of the U.S. ambassador and three members of his staff in Libya, enraged Muslims protested in Asia, Africa and the Middle East and at least nine people lost their lives.

On Sunday, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that even though he believed violent reaction to the video appeared to be over, he ordered nonessential personnel to leave the American diplomatic missions in Sudan, Tunisia and Libya.

In Khartoum, Sudan, the German, Canadian and British consular services remained closed on Monday following attacks on a compound housing the German and British consulates. Despite ongoing protests in Egypt, the U.S. embassy in Cairo returned to full staffing on Monday, according to the State Department.

Appearing on the Alex Jones Show on Sunday, Webster Tarpley said the video is part of an ambitious international intelligence operation aimed at creating an October Surprise designed to install Mitt Romney and his coterie of Bush-era neocons in the White House.

“The pro-Israeli neocons of the Bush-Cheney era have attached themselves to Romney as their main hope of getting back into power,” Tarpley wrote for Infowars.com on Sunday. He attributed the video “trailer” to “a well-known Islamophobic network reputedly inspired by US intelligence,” a network that includes “Pamela Geller, a notorious professional Islamophobe.”

Advertisements

US military-industrial complex looks to exploit demonstrations to weaken Ahmadinejad’s regime

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, February 21, 2011

While the current global revolt sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa is born out of a universal human cry for freedom, food security and a decent standard of living, it is important to understand that the global elite are waiting in the wings to exploit the chaos as an opportunity to re-order the geopolitical landscape in their image, particularly by exploiting the demonstrations as a vehicle through which to weaken and topple the Iranian government.

The primary reason why the US military-industrial complex and other western nations appear to be supporting revolutions which directly threaten the tenures of dictators loyal to them, Hosni Mubarak being a prime example, is that such consequences are a price worth paying if the number one target of the globalists – Iran – gets toppled in the process.

Prominent neo-con David Frum made this point clear in an article entitled America Can’t Afford to Ignore the Chaos in Bahrain, writing, “Always and ever: Iran is the big play in the Middle East…Every regional decision has to be measured against the test: Is this moving us closer to—or further from—a positive change in the Iranian political system? That test should guide decisions about Bahrain, and about a lot more than Bahrain.”

Similarly, the The New York Times’ David Sanger highlighted the fact that it’s in the interests of the US military-industrial complex to allow the revolutions to spread in order to weaken the stability of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In an interview with National Public Radio, Sanger noted that the Obama administration was looking to exploit the protests to create, “an alternative narrative to Iran that the United States ought to make use of.”

“It is in this context that we should understand why the Obama Administration, literally seven hours after Omar Soliman announced that Hosni Mubarak would step down as Egypt’s President after all, called the White House press corps back in and, as Sanger put it, “all but urged the protestors” in Iran, such as they were, “to get out and do more”. The Administration has clearly decided, as America’s strategic position in the Middle East erodes before our eyes, to “push back” against the Islamic Republic, in multiple ways,” write Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett.

Indeed, several top ranking former U.S. military officials have now called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to “rescind the 14-year-old designation of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq Organization, or MEK, as a terrorist group.”

As prominent New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has documented, the US government has already been providing hundreds of millions of dollars to MEK as a means of fomenting instability inside Iran.

“The strategic thinking behind this covert operation is to provoke enough trouble and chaos so that the Iranian government makes the mistake of taking aggressive action which will give the impression of a country in acute turmoil”, said Hersh. “Then you have what the White House calls the ‘casus belli’, a reason to attack the country. That is the thinking and it is very crazy.”

As former CIA Director Michael Hayden notes, governments in the Middle East “are not dominoes, these are very different regimes,” with the Iranian regime undoubtedly being the most immune to the wave of revolutions currently spreading like wildfire across the region.

That’s why the US military-industrial complex is relying on MEK to become the vanguard of the Iranian opposition movement, because as Retired Gen. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Bill Clinton, notes, “Iran’s current regime is currently a government that needs to change,” that is, it needs to change from the perspective of the US military-industrial complex, and they will resort to any means, including bankrolling terrorist organizations while framing them as an “opposition movement,” to make it happen.

The true scale and number of revolts now sweeping the Middle East and North Africa preclude any simple explanation that they were all kick-started as a result of US geopolitical manipulation. However, that’s not to say that such revolutions were not actively forseen and prepared for by the same forces now trying to exploit the fallout.

For example, we know that as far back as December 2008, the US Embassy was aware of plans to overthrow Mubarak in 2011 and had begun secretly funding rebel leaders to spearhead the campaign.

From a wider perspective, the fact that the outcome of the financial collapse would be food riots, revolts, revolutions and even civil war was understood years in advance.

As we wrote back in February 2008, six months before the economic collapse, the UN was “Warning of a food shortage crisis and drawing up plans for food rations which will hit even middle-class suburban populations as inflation and economic uncertainty causes the prices of staple food commodities to skyrocket.” This would lead to “food riots,” we warned, simply reporting the statements of UN officials at the time.

Soaring food prices have been cited as one of the primary drivers behind the revolts in the Middle East and North Africa.

In addition, we reported on an April 2007 British Ministry of Defence document which warned of a “mass revolt on behalf of the middle classes.” which now seems to be unfolding in Wisconsin as well as “Endemic unemployment, instability and threat to the social order,” across the world.

The fact that the revolutions we now witness enveloping the Middle East and North Africa will grow and evolve is without doubt, the only question that remains is whether those revolts will simply lead to another form of tyranny, such as the military dictatorship that has taken over Egypt, whether the outcome will provide the opportunity for the global elite to accelerate their new world order, or whether people power will truly triumph and genuine freedom will prosper as a result.

Before you read the following post; I would like to make a point.  You know, I hear the “fighting for our freedoms” get thrown around a lot, and it really sticks in my crawl.  And I’ll tell you why.  For the last sixty years we have been meddling in the Middle East and manipulating their political systems, so is it too far out the American stretch of the imagination to understand why some people hate us?

True threats to freedom come from legislation, not invasion.  As I’ve stated earlier, to understand the Constitution and the principles of which it was founded, we must first understand the concept of freedom and liberty for all Americans.

For as Thomas Jefferson once said: “When the people fear the government there is tyranny; when the government fear the people there is liberty.”

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, January 24, 2011

News that an alleged suicide bomber killed 31 people and injured over a hundred after an explosion at Russia’s biggest airport is sure to provide the establishment media and governments in the west with more grist through which to sell their fearmongering agenda, when in reality, Americans are just as likely to be killed by peanut allergies, accident-causing deer, and lightning strikes than they are by terrorists.

Roughly the same number as those unfortunately killed in today’s suicide bombing will die on America’s roads today, as well as tomorrow and in fact every day of the year – an average of 115 Americans are killed in car accidents daily, about one every 13 minutes, but you will never see it make the national headlines never mind gain global attention.

And why is that? Because every time we climb into our cars we subconsciously accept the price of freedom – which is the chance of being injured or killed. We take the same gamble every time we board an airplane, cascade down a ski slope or go up in a hot air balloon. We do so because the benefits of being a free human being are infinitely more rewarding than living in constant fear and demanding omnipresent “security,” which is never achievable anyway.

Despite the constant drumbeat of establishment fearmongering about the imminent threat of terrorist attacks, the likelihood of actually being a victim of one is infinitesimally small, and only highlights how such threats are hyperbolically exaggerated for political purposes.

To equal the danger that Americans place themselves in every day by driving their car down the highway, there would have to be a September 11 every month. To reach the same level of risk that one undertakes in boarding an airline, you only have to travel eleven miles in a car.

“Until 2001, far fewer Americans were killed in any grouping of years by all forms of international terrorism than were killed by lightning, and almost none of those terrorist deaths occurred within the United States itself. Even with the September 11 attacks included in the count, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s (which is when the State Department began counting) is about the same as the number of Americans killed over the same period by lightning, accident-causing deer, or severe allergic reaction to peanuts,” writes Ohio University’s John Mueller in a report entitled A False Sense Of Insecurity.

“For all the attention it evokes, terrorism actually causes rather little damage and the likelihood that any individual will become a victim in most places is microscopic,” concludes Mueller.

Which is precisely why Homeland Security’s gradual takeover of American society and its attempt to make citizens spy on each other in the name of preventing terrorism has nothing to do with providing some phantom sense of “security” and everything to do with indoctrinating the slaves to maintain complete obedience to their would-be slave masters.

This is about eviscerating constitutional rights by characterizing the exercise of those rights to dissent against the state as an abnormal behavior. This is not our claim – the DHS’ own internal documents list Ron Paul supporters, gun owners, gold bullion enthusiasts, and a myriad of other banal political interests as possible extremism and/or terrorism.

In addition, the US State Department defines the right to peaceably assemble and protest as “low-level terrorism”.

The fact that genuine acts of terror pose a miniscule level of real-world threat to Americans is known and fully understood by the likes of Homeland Security and the State Department. The fact that such agencies are now more concerned with persecuting politically-active Americans as terrorists explains the true intention behind programs like “See Something, Say Something,” which is firmly focused around chilling the 1st Amendment by creating a climate of constant fear and mistrust.

On the contrary, the V For Victory campaign is about creating a climate of solidarity, trust, and a bond of freedom amongst the American people, which is why we urge you to become part of the resistance against big government tyranny by re-asserting your status as a free-thinking, liberty-minded individual who rejects the odious historical connotations of recruiting citizen spies to tattle on their friends, colleagues and fellow Americans.

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
November 16, 2010

During a talk with the Wall Street Journal CEO Council, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg told a group of chief executives that government needs to impose a carbon tax in order to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and fight terrorism at the same time.

 
  bloomosama.jpg
   

“If this country ever wants to be energy independent, if we ever want to stop sending our monies to the terrorists who want to take our freedoms away and kill us, we’ve got to wean ourselves off all this foreign oil,” said Bloomberg. “We’ve got to make this decision: do you want to stop sending your money to terrorists and have terrorists come here, or do you not?”

Is Bloomberg worried about terrorists in Canada?

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the largest share of foreign oil imported by the United States comes from Canada (20.1%) followed by Saudi Arabia (13.8%). The United States and Saudi Arabia have shared full diplomatic relations since 1933.

In October, the State Department told Congress of its intention to make the biggest arms sale in American history — an estimated $60.5 billion — to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a country Bloomberg says harbors terrorists enabled by Americans driving cars and heating their homes.

It is true Saudi Arabia was (and still is) involved in terrorism — at the behest of the CIA and the United States. In the 1980s, the CIA and Saudi Arabia shared a special relationship while coordinating the covert war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Saudis donated around $40 billion total for the war.

Saudi Osama bin Laden was tapped by the CIA in Instanbul to work with the Mujaheddin. He raised money from private Saudi citizens. An important part of the effort included introducing fanatical religious beliefs subsequently taken up by the Taliban, a movement organized by Pakistan’s ISI and paid for by the CIA and Saudi oil money.

It should not be a surprise the Saudis have shared an intimate relationship with the CIA and western intelligence for a number of decades. The Saudis worked closely with the Muslim Brotherhood — long ago compromised by British and U.S. intelligence — in the 1950s to depose the Arab nationalist and Egyptian president Gamal Abddul Nasser. The Saudis later worked with the CIA and exported their austere version of Sunni Islam, Wahhabism, to Afghanistan and Muslim points beyond.

In the 1970s, when Frank Church’s committee attempted to investigate CIA misdeeds, the Saudis teamed up with France, Egypt, Morocco, and Iran to form the Safari Club to put down rebellions in Africa and depose unfavorable governments in the neighborhood. Under Bush the Lesser, we discovered that the CIA was back in a big way.

Saudi Prince Turki bin Faisal said the operation had the official blessing of CIA director George Bush Senior and the Saudi intelligence chief, Kamal Adham, who “transformed a small Pakistani merchant bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), into a world-wide money-laundering machine, buying banks around the world to create the biggest clandestine money network in history.”

The NSC’s Oliver North established a covert and illegal network to divert illicit funds from weapons sold to the Iranians to the Nicaraguan Contras. North used the Bank of Credit and Commerce International to channel money. Saudi Arabia laundered money and moved it through the BCCI and on to the renegade Contras.

On the other side of the Iran-Iraq exploit Saudi Arabia, along with Jordan, Kuwait, and Egypt, supplied Iraq with U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs, and other weapons with the secret approval of the Reagan administration during the Iran-Iraq war. In total, more than a million Iraqis and Iranians were butchered in this regional war instigated by Reagan, Bush, the NSC, CIA, Saudi intelligence, Pakistan’s ISI, and various junior partners and front organizations, including the BCCI, the spook bank.

The interests of the Saudi Kingdom were first and foremost in mind when elements of Saudi intelligence went to work with the global intelligence Mafia led by the CIA on the morning of September 11, 2001. Saudi operatives and patsies played a dominant role. Osama was directly linked to the Saudi royal family through his family.

Michael Bloomberg knows the Canadians and the Saudis are under the control of the New World Order. He also knows that virtually all terrorism of significance is orchestrated by the state.

But then Michael Bloomberg did not gather with the prestigious Wall Street Journal CEO Council to discuss history, politics, and the machinations of the global elite as they take down country after country.

Big time terrorist events like the mass slaughters in New York, London, Madrid, and Mumbai are invariably orchestrated by the state, as former German Defense Minister Andreas Von Buelow pointed out after the staged event in Washington and New York.

Bloomberg had a very explicit agenda — propagandize the notion of global climate change ahead of a plan to fleece the commoners in a staged effort to combat a looming biological threat.

List of United States Senators from South Carolina

Image via Wikipedia

Senator Lindsey Graham spoke the same fearmonger/warmonger propaganda recently, urging President Obama to strike Iran and cripple “their ability to wage war.”  He even said that we are probably past that point.  This speech of stopping their ability to “wage war” sounds a lot like the rhetoric that we’ve heard from then-President George W. Bush, when he urged the American people to support his backtrack of foreign policy and used the same excuse.

“Instead of a surgical strike on their nuclear infrastructure, I think we’re to the point now that you have to really neuter the regime’s ability to wage war against us and our allies. And that’s a different military scenario. It’s not a ground invasion but it certainly destroys the ability of the regime to strike back.”

As far as I know, Iran hasn’t lobbed one weapon towards the continental United States or Iraq, or Afghanistan.  It’s not a “ground invasion”, but an invasion just the same.  And for the President to order such an attack without a Declaration of War from Congress is illegal.

Speaking on terms of retaliation on Iran’s part, Graham said:

“You can expect that,” he said. “You can expect, for a period of time, all hell to break loose. You must have to almost plan for that. And weigh that against the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran and what that means to the future of the world.”

Well, it’s finally time that someone admittted the obvious.

Graham said the current sanctions on Iran are not “crippling”.  Now by what he means by “crippling”, he didn’t elaborate, and, furthermore, I don’t think that even he knows.  Sanctions are an act of war and aggression, and they don’t work.  Before WWII, sanctions created Hitler.  During the ’90s, sanctions killed more that 500,000 people in Iraq.

Iran has said that if we attack (and they have a right to) they will retaliate on our forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and most certainly Israel.  War begetts more war and brings no resemblance of peace.

Our current state in the Middle East is precarious at best.  Iraq and Afghanistan are complete failures, and we are told that bin Laden is in Pakistan; adding more fuel to the military industrial complex’s war machine.  In an attempt to “fight terrorism” the United States government is trying to buy Pakistan’s alliegance, which by most reports, isn’t working.

Broadening our war machine to Iran will invigorate al-Qaeda and we will be fighting a well-armed military.  Blood will be shed for a conflict that has no end in sight.  By the end, the American people will be asking the most obvious of questions, “why did we do this for?”  But this may come at a time when it is too late for the United States to realize the fact.

Barack Obama Hillary Clinton

When we look at Iraq and Afghanistan in the context of “why we went over there” as compared to now, we see that they are complete failures.  No weapons of mass destruction.  No legitamate government to take its place.  Osama bin Laden has never been found.  And if he is dead, the government doesn’t want that information to leak out.

We know now that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never existed.  And yet, this event in 1964 lead to a nine year conflict and 60,000 lives lost.  In 1965 President Johnson would say privately:  “For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there.”

We know that September 11, 2001 happened, we saw it with our own eyes.  And while many Amer’cans, like myself, have questions surrounding that day, that is a discussion best left for another time.

But why attack Afghanistan when fifteen of the nineteen hijackers came from Saudi Arabia?  A Saudi Arabia that we still sell arms to.  I read in the paper today that from 2005 to 2009 that the Department of Defense had not kept proper track – if they ever did – of the weapons they sold in the Middle East.

Does this come as a surprise?  Draw your own conclusions.  Here are a couple of snippets of a Huffington Post article about the divides in the Obama administration’s foreign policy.  We are never leaving, at least not on our own accord.  I found this on Campaign for Liberty, but added my own thoughts.

During a dinner hosted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for Afghan President Hamid Karzai in May, Gates reminded the group that he still feels guilty for his role in the first President Bush’s decision to pull out of Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, according to Bob Woodward’s new book, “Obama’s Wars.” And to express his commitment to not letting down the country again, he emphasized:

We’re not leaving Afghanistan prematurely,” Gates finally said. “In fact, we’re not ever leaving at all.”

“You have to recognize that I don’t think you win this war. I think you keep fighting. You have to stay after it. This is the kind of fight we’re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives.”