Archive | November 27th, 2015

The Paris attacks and the White Lives Matter movement


Ajamu Baraka

Image result for White Lives Matter CARTOON
The victims of the violence in Paris may have been innocent, but France was not. French crimes against Arabs, Muslims and Africans are ever-present in the historical memory. Those memories became the toxic mix that resulted in the blow back on November 13.

I received a message from one of my friends in Lebanon who asked with feigned curiosity why the U.S. media only gave a passing reference to the bombing in Beirut before turning to non-stop coverage of the attacks in Paris. Of course, like many of us, she already knew the answer – that in the consciousness of the White West there is a premium on the value of White life.

Acknowledging this fact is neither new nor should it be particularly controversial. Its obviousness is apparent to anyone who is honest. We saw it in the response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks where the world (meaning the White West) engaged in a gratuitous expression of moral outrage against terrorism. But that outrage against terrorism didn’t extend to the two thousand Nigerians who were murdered by Boko Haram the same weekend that a massive rally in Paris took place to condemn the Charlie Hebdo attack. At that rally not one word of solidarity or condemnation of terrorism in Nigeria was expressed by the speakers or the thousands gathered that day.

What my friend and all of us who have been the victims of the selected morality and oppressive violence of Western civilization over the last five hundred years have come to understand is that non-European life simply does not have equal value.

How else can one explain the complete lack of attention to the humanity of the victims of ISIS attacks in Beirut and in Bagdad the day before or the lack of concern for the lives of the over 7,000 people in Yemen murdered by the Saudi Arabia dictatorship, with U.S. and NATO support?

And is it unfair to suggest that it is the diminished value of the lives of people in the global South that allows supporters of Bernie Sanders to dismiss his support for U.S. war-mongering policies in the global South?


In the classrooms of Western universities and occasionally in civic courses in high schools, students are introduced to the ideas of liberal humanitarianism that are supposed to characterize the core values of the European enlightenment. The enlightenment is supposed to represent the progressive advancement of all of humanity by the thinkers of Europe who, of course, represented the leading edge of collective humanity.

But what is not sufficiently interrogated in these classes is the fact that while these grand theories of “mankind’s” inherent equality, rationality and even “perfectibility,” were being discussed, those theorists had already arrived at a consensus. This consensus was on the criteria for determining which individuals and groups would be recognized as having equal membership in the human family, what Hannah Arendt referred to as those people who had the “right to have rights.” According to the criteria, women and the non-European world were excluded or assigned to a lower order of humanity. Eurocentric academicians, still a hegemonic force in the West, don’t historicize the “great” humanitarian theories of Europe and critically juxtapose the rise of those theories with the concrete practices of European powers. Those practices involved the systematic slaughter of millions of indigenous people throughout the Americas and the African slave trade that made Europe fat and rich and allowed for the creation of a class of intellectuals freed-up from the struggle to earn a living and able to engage in the higher contemplations of life.

However, Eurocentric liberalism was never just confined to the academy. It became the hegemonic ideological force that embedded itself in the culture and collective consciousness of the Western project and with it the de-valuation of non-European life and culture. In other words, the White supremacist ideology and world-view, normalized and thus un-recognized by most, has become a form of psychopathology. It is the cognitive dissonance that Fanon talks about regarding White supremacy as part of the colonial mindset and what James Baldwin refers to as the “lie of white supremacy” that has distorted the personalities, lives and the very ability of many White people to grasp reality.

However, the contradictions in the spheres of ideas and culture are not the real threat. The construction of a Western collective consciousness that is unable to cognitively process information and consider knowledge beyond the assumptions of its own world-views and values is dangerous enough, but the ease with which humanity is stratified with Europeans and their societies representing the apex of human development is the real threat because that belief has resulted in the rationalization for the crimes of colonialism, slavery and genocide, and the politics of permanent war.


Despite the spirited defense of the positive aspects of liberalism from John Rawls to radicals like Slavoj Zizek, the racist and sexist contradictions of liberalism was once again confirmed by the obscenely disproportionate response to the attacks in Paris that once again demonstrated that liberalism is no more than a racist ideological construct posing as trans-historical philosophy.

However, let me be clear, my critique of the moral hypocrisy of the West should not be read as a rationalization for the horrific crimes committed in Paris a few days ago. The intentional murder of non-combatants is a recognizable war crime that can rise to the level of a crime against humanity and should always be condemned with the perpetrators brought to justice. That legal principle is based on the moral principle of the equal value of all life and everyone’s human right to life. The defense and enforcement of those principles requires, however, that all states and groups be subjected to the same legal and ethical standards and that all are held accountable.

But in the context of the existing global power relations, crimes committed by Western states and those states aligned with the West as well as their paramilitary institutions escape accountability for crimes committed in the non-European world. In fact some states – like the United States – proudly claim their “exceptionality,” meaning impunity from international norms, as a self-evident natural right.

And in that sense, while the victims of the violence in Paris may have been innocent, France was not. French crimes against Arabs, Muslims and Africans are ever- present in the historical memory and discourse of many members of those populations living in France. Those memories, the systemic discrimination experienced by many Muslims and the collaboration of French authorities with the U.S. and others that gave aid and logistical support to extremist elements in Syria and turned their backs while their citizens traveled to Syria to topple President Assad, became the toxic mix that resulted in the blowback on November 13.

Although a number of the dead in Paris are young Arabs, Muslims and Africans, in the global popular imagination, France, like the U.S. (even under a Black president), is still White.

So in Iraq the Shia will continue to die in the thousands from ISIS bombs; the Saudis will continue to slaughter Houthi’s with U.S. and NATO assistance; and Palestinian mothers will continue to bury their children, murdered by Zionist thugs in and out of uniform, without any outcry from the West. CNN and others will give non-stop coverage to the attacks in Paris because in the end we all really know that the lives that really matter are White.

Posted in FranceComments Off on The Paris attacks and the White Lives Matter movement

Paris attacks and the French state reaction: Murderers all


Samuel Albert

Image result for President Hollande CARTOON
If France is “at war”, as President Hollande announced after the horrific attacks in Paris last week, then it is an unjust war between reactionary forces equally disdainful of human life, neither of them less deliberately and consciously cruel in the pursuit of reactionary political objectives. Supporting either France or the Islamists will only worsen the dynamic between two unacceptable alternatives.

The 13 November bombings and shootings in Paris murdered 129 innocent people. Many of them in their twenties and thirties, they happened to be attending a rock concert, eating out in a lively neighbourhood, watching football in a sports bar or just walking by. The attacks took lives at random, devastating families irreparably and leaving most ordinary French people in pain and profound shock.

The attacks were part of a wave of deliberate massacres of civilians claimed by Daesh (Islamic State), including blasts that cut down dozens of people in a Shia neighbourhood in Beirut just the day before, and the blowing up of a Russian airliner with 224 tourists aboard over Egypt’s Sinai desert in October. These were all acts of murder, though on a much smaller scale than the Western powers, France among them, have inflicted on the peoples of the world for more than a century, in the Middle East and elsewhere. Need we mention as many as a million victims of France’s war to prevent Algerian independence (1952-62)?

Almost immediately, French President Francois Hollande declared war. He stated that his country faced not just attacks by individuals as it has in the past, but now “a terrorist army”. “We are at war,” he told the French parliament a few days after the Paris attack, when it met to give him wartime powers. He claimed this was self-defence, although his government had stepped up military operations in Syria – surveillance flights, air strikes and, according to Le Monde, special forces – in the weeks and days before the Paris killings.

If this is a war, it is an unjust war between reactionary forces equally disdainful of human life, neither of them less deliberately and consciously cruel in the pursuit of reactionary political objectives. Supporting either side will only worsen the dynamic between two unacceptable alternatives. People need to step forward and politically oppose both sides and all their horrors and work to break free of this ghastly logic.

Daesh poses as the only force that can challenge the power, ideology and hypocrisy of the imperialist ruling classes of the handful of countries that control or seek to control so many nations and bring so much misery to so many people. They mount this challenge inspired by a reactionary ideology and vision of society that would bring to power rising new exploiters and thwarted old ones. The goal of their jihad is to preserve, sanctify and systematize existing forms of oppression of the people in the Middle East and elsewhere, including the supremacy of men over women, a subjugation that persists in old and new forms throughout all of today’s world, along with other oppressive social divisions that crush the lives and potentials of whole populations. Thousands of youth from France and elsewhere have joined their ranks in Syria and other countries because they believe Islamism offers them a future denied them in their societies. Some of them are said to have been involved in the Paris attacks.

France has been deeply involved in Syria since the First World War was fought to re-divide the world among the imperialist powers. Even before that war was over, the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement split the Ottoman empire’s possessions between Britain and France. France tore Syria apart to create the state of Lebanon, basing itself on its allies among the Christian minority there, and more generally worked to exacerbate religious and ethnic contradictions. The Daesh communiqué issued after the Paris massacres specifically called France “the guardian of the Sykes-Picot temple,” meaning not only the old colonial order but the region’s economic and political subjugation that has persisted and in some ways intensified.

France has sought to advance its interests in Syria and the region in many ways over the years, sometimes in concert with other powers such as the U.S. and often in rivalry with them. Probably more than any other Western power, France has historic ties and influence among sectors of the Syrian ruling class, once with the Assad family and now among leading regime defectors portrayed as the “moderate” (pro-Western) opposition. Ironically, it was France, not the U.S., that was most eager to open a bombing campaign against the Assad regime in 2013. Since then, with the U.S. and then Russia conducting their operations in Syria under the banner of confronting Daesh, French President Hollande has seen an increasing need to do the same, this time in the name of opposing not Assad but Daesh. The tactics, manoeuvres and justifications vary, but the imperialist interests remain the same – he who does not have armed forces involved is not going to sit at the table when the spoils are divided.

It should be understood that what France has and hopes to do in Syria is no different from what it has been doing with its 3,500 troops in Chad, Mali and elsewhere in former French colonies in Western and Central Africa: they are not looking to re-establish colonial set-ups that are no longer possible or necessarily desirable from the point of view of French imperialism, but they are working to bring peoples more tightly into the networks of capital accumulation in Paris and keeping imperialist rivals at bay.

Just as Hollande had already stepped up French operations in Syria before the Paris attacks, his government had already begun to adopt sweeping new government powers in the name of combating Islamist terrorism. These powers were also directed at France’s considerable population of immigrant origin, largely from predominantly Moslem countries that were once French colonies and remain within its sphere of influence. These repressive measures range from legislation allowing the political police to operate more freely of judicial oversight (not heralding new surveillance practices but giving them a more solid legal cover) to banning tinted glass in cars (justified as necessary for police to see whether drivers are texting or wearing seatbelts, but also, of course, allowing them to more easily spot people’s ethnicity).

After the attacks, Hollande declared a state of emergency that allowed almost 300 police to conduct home invasions without search warrants over two nights. Parents, siblings and other family members of people suspected of implication in the attacks were jailed without charges – an act considered revenge and hostage-taking when carried out by some other countries.

In fact, as French journalists have pointed out, that hypocritical slogan “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” has been drowned out by the singing of the national anthem, La Marseillaise, with emphasis on the verse, “Citizens, to arms”. Unlike after the Charlie Hebdo massacres last January, there are fewer warnings from within the establishment against confusing Islamists with people of Islamic backgrounds. The keynote in Hollande’s discourse is that the state will be “merciless” abroad and at home.

Not coincidently, Hollande has taken up the far right National Front proposal to give the government the power to strip even French-born people (meaning from immigrant backgrounds) of their citizenship. He confined the threat to people holding dual nationality, since leaving people stateless is problematic under international law, but the symbolic value of this power is enormous, as is its potential as a weapon to terrorize families with the possibility of being torn apart. Many millions of immigrants are dual nationals.

Speaking before both chambers of parliament, an extremely rare occasion, he called for legislation that would allow the state of emergency he declared to be extended for 90 days. He also called for changing the country’s 1958 constitution to give this extended state of emergency a stronger legal foundation, and for modifying a constitutional clause that currently allows the president to assume sweeping powers only in the event of an armed insurrection or foreign invasion. He announced the hiring of thousands of new police, border guards and prison guards.

The vagueness of Hollande’s intentions leaves open all kinds of possibilities. There is a general uproar in France’s ruling circles about the risks and opportunities posed by different approaches the country could adopt on a national and international level.

But there is much unity among the French ruling class in terms of repressive measures. For instance, when a leader of the Republicans (the new name of the mainstream right wing party) called for the internment of everyone with an “S” on their police file (meaning that they are under special surveillance, now usually for suspected Islamist connections, estimated to be between 4,000 and 10,000 people, according to Le Monde and the New York Times respectively), Hollande’s Prime Minister Manuel Valls refused to discard that possibility, saying that the government would consider “all necessary weapons”.

When the French president declares “We are at war,” what comes to mind is not just World War II but the Algerian war, when the powers Hollande is evoking were established. They were aimed especially at Algerians in France and also meant to settle disputes in the ruling class by force.

France may be “at war”, but with what realistic war aims remains unclear. At the same time, France cannot stand aside from this conflict, because it needs to maintain and expand its status as a great power, and ultimately as one of the handful of monopoly capitalist countries able to extract super-profits from its place in the workings of the world imperialist system. That is a very dangerous situation, for the French ruling class, the people of France and the world.

The risks are also very high on the domestic front. Stripping people of their French nationality would mean formally acknowledging the inequality of French citizens, a fact already experienced in the daily lives of people in the suburban housing estates where a section of the lower classes already feels confined. It is likely that one of Daesh’s political goals behind these ghastly attacks was to accentuate the dynamic in which large sections of people from France’s so-called “underclass” are pushed in the direction of Islamism by their marginalized position in society and especially by state repression against them.

Both sides are stepping up the polarization between Islamism and the French ruling class and its ideology. That is exactly the problem, the way the clash between these two reactionary sides defines the situation today. A refusal to recognize this dynamic – this reality – can only lead to being pulled into the wake of one side or the other despite protestations to the contrary. In the imperialist countries especially, but not only, this usually means helping the imperialists. Everywhere, supporting either side means strengthening the underlying reactionary dynamic and strengthening both.

It is hard for people to resist the attraction of these two poles without some understanding of why these are not the only choices. In the oppressed and oppressor countries alike, they need a long-term perspective of how a revolutionary alternative could arise. After the 11 September 2001 attacks in the U.S., despite a strong tendency of people to seek protection from the government, with the participation of revolutionary communists a “Not in our name” movement emerged that was able to contest the Bush regime’s attempts to take the moral high ground as a representative of the victims and use this to legitimate even more massive crimes.

Today, a serious, courageous and growing opposition to the past, present and future crimes of imperialist rulers could provide political aid to those who hate both imperialism and Islamism in the Middle East and be part of beginning to change today’s unfavourable political landscape worldwide.

Posted in FranceComments Off on Paris attacks and the French state reaction: Murderers all

‘Pray for Paris’: Epistemology and political economy of global terrorism


Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem.Sr

The world is in crisis. The nation-state and the international system have failed to serve the needs of all humanity fairly. While privileging a minority, this unjust system has marginalized most of the world’s people. Global terrorism is a reaction to this failure. A new international political economy is urgently needed.


Friday, 13 November, 2015 witnessed yet another horrific terrorist attack in Paris. 129 people were killed in this attack and over 300 were badly wounded. The whole world is shocked at the sheer brutality of such attacks that end the lives of innocent civilians without discrimination. The US Secretary of State termed the attackers “psychopathic monsters.” Just like the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, Embassy bombings in Nairobi in 1998, and the Nairobi Westgate attack in 2013, the terrorist attack in Paris leaves many wondering what is behind all this brutal acts by extremist Islamists. Terrorism has even evolved into what is now termed Islamic State ideology or ISIS. Can we now talk of an epistemology and political economy of terrorism? Has terrorism metamorphosed into a complex knowledge system with an elaborate political theory, whose elements have to be comprehended before strategies can be devised to deal with this global menace that is a major threat to the Westphalia state system and liberal democracy?

I suggest that a discourse on global terrorism be grounded in the conceptual and theoretical frameworks of global civil society, global governance, cosmopolitcs, political epistemology and global political economy. The emergency of global terrorism calls for a new paradigm in international relations theory, since new actors have emerged in the global scene to contest the hitherto dominant role of the nation-state in international affairs, especially in matters of war, security and violence.

The fact that the extremist jihadist Abdelhamid Abaaoud, a 28-year-old Belgian of Morocan origin, could plan attacks in Paris, demonstrates how terrorism is indeed thriving in the context of increasing globalization. Consider the many variables at stake: a Muslim of Moroccan origin who bears Belgian citizenship coordinating terror attacks in Paris. This is what makes it difficult to deal with global terrorism. Actors in global terrorism are extremely sophisticated individuals, with complex profiles.

The almost four-year war in Syria has given rise to the Islamic state. Extremist jihadists leave Western countries to join ISIS in Syria and return to these countries to cause havoc. Just as France was recovering from the Paris terrorist attack, extremists attacked Radisson Blu Hotel in Bamako, Mali, and killed about 20 tourists after a siege lasting seven ours. What do we make of these wanton terrorist attacks that have shaken the entire world system?

There is enough empirical data and commentaries to assist in theorizing about terrorism. I suggest a pentagonal (pun unintended) framework to address the multifaceted phenomenon of global terrorism. The five dimensions of this framework are: 1) Power of epistemology and epistemology of power; 2) Power of the weak and weakness of the powerful; 3) Terror of Globalization and globalization of terror; 4) Commodification of violence and violence of commodities; 5) War on terror and terror of war. Note that in each dimension a thesis is followed by an antithesis. Following the Hegelian triadic movement of history of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, the dialectic compels us to look for a synthesis, which I suggest to be cosmopolitics as a new international political economy. All the developments around global terrorism, failure of powerful states to address the menace of violent extremism, global poverty and environmental crisis, seem to point to the uncomfortable truth that the Westphalian state paradigm has outlived its usefulness.


There is a common adage that “knowledge is power.” But we can also add that “power is knowledge.” Epistemology is a theory of knowledge, and so when we apply epistemology to global terrorism, we attempt to theorize about terrorism, exploring its nature and dynamics based on the bits of data we have. It should be stated at the outset that the grand theory behind terrorism is still a work in progress. Since terrorism does not have a clearly defined central location like in a state system, it can be defined as decentralized power and violence. But we must hasten to add that terrorism follows a certain complex logic and system of knowledge that is yet to be fully grasped.

The knowledge system under which terrorists operate defies the conventional Western epistemological system. This is why security and intelligence agencies find it very difficult to pre-empt terror attacks. Following the emergency of terrorism especially after 9/11, the dynamics of power have changed but most political leaders have failed to fully understand this radical shift in the conception of power. Faced with this challenge Joseph Nye came up with the new concept of “soft power” which he defined as “…the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments. It arises from the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals, and policies.”[1]

If one knows the nature and dynamics of terrorism, then one would apply appropriate strategies to deal with it. The success or failure of strategies against terrorism demonstrate whether the phenomenon of terrorism is well grasped. This point is well captured by Nye when commenting on America’s war in Iraq: “The four-week war in Iraq in the spring of 2003 was dazzling display of America’s hard military power that removed a tyrant, but it did not resolve our vulnerability to terrorism. It was also costly in terms of our soft power—our ability to attract others to our side.” [2] Concepts are the tools of trade of epistemology, and concepts are powerful tools, like the concept of “soft power.”

Founders of the realist school of international relations put emphasis on hard power, some of them such as Niccolo Machiavelli even advised political leaders that it is better to be feared than to be loved. Thomas Hobbes added that covenants without swords are mere words. It is this framework of power that has dominated world politics for centuries. But with the growth of information technology the dynamics of power have changed to the effect that those who wield information, and hence influence, have enormous power. A computer or an Android smart phone gives as much or even more power than a gun.

Power can also be acquired because of beliefs and convictions. Consider the follower of Osama bin Laden who is ready to die for a terrorist cause just on the grounds of Osama’s objectives. This is where belief systems or worldviews have a great impact on people. This means that terrorist groups also use “soft power”—they persuade recruits that they have a better worldview than the countries or people they are targeting. Unsurprisingly, terrorists also use information technology to pass on their message.

It is clear that new forms of power also generate new ways of knowing. This is what ICT has done. Soft power has been discovered just as information technology became a commonplace. As new power centers emerge, new knowledge systems emerge. With the emergence of terrorism, new epistemologies have also emerged. Information technology makes borders more porous and the flow of knowledge is made easier, but also hard to control. This is why the fight against terrorism is much more difficult.


If as Hannah Arendt claims “…every decrease in power is an open invitation to violence”, then terrorism might be a result of disempowerment. So violence, in this case terrorism, is a weapon of the weak to inflict maximum pain and fear on the powerful. This can be verified from the type of weapons and homemade bombs that terrorists use: pressure cookers, soft-drink cans, shoes, cell phones, petrol, etc. Frequent flyers know the inconvenience they go through as they are searched at airports and their items confiscated: tooth paste, lotions, shavers, water, etc. For any of these simple items can be turned into a weapon of mass destruction.

No one ever thought that a small item such as a toothpaste tube, a cell phone or a plastic water bottle can be used to blow up a plane, or set an entire airport on fire. The shear ingenuity of terrorists leaves the mighty scared. The options for unleashing large -destruction using minimum resources are unlimited. Intelligence and security personnel are on their toes never sure what new strategies will be used to carry out terrorist attacks. What is more frustrating is the constant change of strategy: after using planes to destroy the twin towers, this method was abandoned; after targeting shopping malls, this method was shelved; suicide bombs have persisted for a while; the pressure cooker bomb used during the Boston Marathon attack has not been use since then. This means that security agencies have no clue what the next bomb will be made of. Fighting terrorism has become like fighting a moving target.

As Karl Von Clausewitz labeled war as “the continuation of politics by other means,” terrorism as war of the weak who lack a sate machinery is a continuation of politics by other means. Engels went further to define violence as the accelerator of economic development. It should therefore come as no surprise that terrorism has become a huge industry as nations invest in massive security and defense programs to counter terrorist attacks. The emergency of terrorism has helped raise the question of power among nations. Who is powerful? Hannah Arendt reflecting on violence made the following reminder worth pondering: “…power cannot be measured in terms of wealth, that an abundance of wealth may erode power, that riches and well-being of republics—an insight that does not lose in validity because it has been forgotten, especially at a time when its truth has acquired a new dimension of validity by becoming applicable to the arsenal of violence as well.”[3]

According to Hobbes, one of the main rights of a sovereign is that of making war and peace. Now that terrorist groups can wage war against sovereign states, the claim that the state has monopoly over the use of force needs rethinking. The map of terrorist activities across Africa is well painted by Baffor Ankomah: “From the east, in Somalia, where al-Shabab has been laying waste to human life and property all the way into Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia, to Nigeria where Boko Haram thinks boarding school children are legitimate targets of attack in addition to the indiscriminate murder of civilians, to the Maghreb and Sahel countries where Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and its affiliates and competitors have gone as far as launching a full-scale hot war in Mali after years of attacks in Algeria, Mauritania, Niger and Chad, the definition of a ‘terrorist” on the continent has changed dramatically from how Mrs Thatcher and Mr Reagan saw it in their days, to a dangerous extremist prepared to kill, maim and destroy.”[4]

Terrorist groups act like multinational corporations by creating affiliates under different labels in various countries. They are truly a global phenomenon, but they execute their plans locally.

So the strength of the weak non-state terrorist groups lies in their ability to make strong strategic allies across borders using religion as a glue for unquestioning loyalty and external funding to oil their operations. Terrorists can move from Belgium to France, from Chad to Mali, from Somalia to Kenya, from Kenya to Uganda, from Sudan to Somali, from Afghanistan to Somalia, changing names and passports at will. Since these terrorists have incredible flexibility in their strategies, governments are unable to predict their moves or gather credible intelligence so as to pre-empt terror attacks. This is where lies the weakness of the powerful nations. Terrorists also find sanctuary in fragile or failed states. This is why jihadists are being trained in Iraq, Syria, Somalia and Afghanistan. Failed or fragile states provide suitable routes for smuggling illegal guns, and recruiting grounds for unemployed youth.

The powerlessness of the powerful amidst increasing internationalization of the state is well articulated by Yoshikazu Sakamoto using the G7 as a case study thus: “The cause of its (G7) failure is structural. First, the problems—such as nuclear disarmament and proliferation, strengthening of the United Nations, world financial instability, world structural unemployment, global environmental regulations, and so forth—that confront the big powers are of such global consequence that they can no longer be adequately dealt with within the framework of the state system or the mere total sum of the statecraft of individual states.”[5] While the inefficiencies and incompetence of the state and state system are too glaring for all to see, both and advanced and weak states of the South continue to do business as though they can handle global challenges. With increasing internationalization, sovereign states have lost their… authority, competence, credibility and legitimacy…”[6]


So can terrorism be situated in the broader discourse of globalization or even trace its roots therein? A question was put to a world expert on Islam and interreligious dialogue Thomas Michel, S.J. as to what he would say the root causes of religious fundamentalism were. This is how he responded: ‘Well, the root causes of religious fundamentalism, I think, are basically a rejection of the values of modernity—our liberal values, you might say, values that came out of European environment. From the fundamentalist point of view, these liberal values guide and control government ministries, the universities, the mass media, the arts, films and that kind of thing. And they feel that liberal values create a kind of human-centered universe, but they want to replace this with a God-centered universe where God’s will is central.”[7] So terrorism born of religious fundamentalism, it seems, is a protest and resistance against Western liberal ideology. Has globalization brought about marginalization of peripheral perspectives, and the only alternative left is to hit back with the decentralized violence we now term “terrorism”?

On the question of whether terrorism should be treated like a criminal act, Mahmood Mamdani observes: “The distinction between political terror and crime is that the former makes an open bid for public support. Unlike the criminal, the political terrorist is not easily deterred by punishment. Whatever we may think of their methods, terrorists have not only a need to be heard but, more often than not, a cause to champion.”[8] This is the reason why terrorists tend to get more energized whenever they are attacked, since they are for a cause. It is also the same reason they are ready to engage in suicide bombings.

The close connection between globalization and terrorism was stressed by the United Nations panel on Funding for Development on June 2001: “In the global village, someone else’s poverty very soon becomes one’s own problem: of lack of markets for one’s produce, illegal immigration, pollution, contagious disease, insecurity, fanaticism, terrorism”. [9] So it is evident that humanity is now much more interrelated because of challenges of poverty, migration, environmental crisis, pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, insecurity and global terrorism. Globalization considered as increasing interconnectedness brought about by trade, travel, technology, however has not been marched by a global ethic that entails a global criminal justice system, global economic policies, and global government.

The terror of globalization lies in the following contradictions: neighbors in the global village can live side by side with some swimming in affluence while others live on less than a dollar a day; neighbors living in security while others are constantly afraid of violent death; neighbors living in abundance of knowledge and skills, while others are living in ignorance. Peter Singer confronts this contradiction in the global village by suggesting that we need a new thinking about ethics beyond the nation-state model: “Implicit in the term of “globalization” rather than the older “internationalization” is the idea that we are moving beyond the era of growing ties between nations and are beginning to contemplate something beyond the existing conception of the nation-state.”[10]

What makes many doubt and question the logic of free market is what Yoshikazu Sakamoto noted as the inequality in the world system: “The present world order is characterized by the simultaneous presence of unprecedented levels of affluence and of poverty and hunger.”[11] What Sakamoto and many others who are critical of globalization is saying is the fact of over 800 million people suffering from hunger and malnutrition. In case one is tempted to argue that such glaring inequality and large scale hunger cannot be blamed on globalization and indifference Sakamoto suggests the following thought experiment: “If humankind lived in one country, with the richest top 10 percent of the total population residing in the Northern suburbs called OECD, while the bottom 10 percent lived in the Southern shanty towns on the brink of death from hunger, and the next 30-40 percent up poverty-stricken, this reality would be considered a political problem, drawing the attention of the public to the question of political accountability.”[12]

The extreme poverty that is tied to global inequality and even exploitative economic policies is a cause of much suffering worse than terrorism. Sakamoto goes further to call this form of suffering a genocide —“…the daily genocide of deprived people and infant children in the South.”[13] To this suffering add deaths from preventable diseases, armed conflict and displacement, and illiteracy. While humanitarian help and other forms of aid are usually poured to the South to alleviate suffering, the issue however is to put in place policies and political arrangement that will provide long-term solutions.

Without corresponding global government to control the global economy, there is a danger of further weakening of the nation-state, and increasing marginalization of poor sections of society. Global economy institutions such as World Bank, IMF, WTO cannot fill in the gaps for a global policy body, since they will most likely serve economic interests of the powerful actors in the world economic system. This partly explains why developing countries have been subjected to inconsistent and contradictory economic policies that were later deemed unviable. The main criticism leveled against the current form of globalization led by the Washington Consensus under the World Bank, IMF and WTO rubrics, is that it has tended to put profit above people’s wellbeing. Consequently, the environment has suffered under the tyranny of the free market. This model has also praised economic growth but ignored human development.

Just as the unregulated global economy has brought about great suffering across the world due to income inequality and exploitation of cheap labor, global terror has spread untold suffering across the world attacking centers of global capitalism. And since the world is very much interconnected, the terror attacks in one part of the world are felt across the globe. The global media quickly transmits images of horrific acts of terrorism, while terrorists use easy means of travel and communication to coordinate their terror attacks. The rise of terrorism has been linked to the three pillars of global governance (political pillar—states, international organizations; economic pillar—market, transnational corporations, private international organizations; Socio-cultural pillar—civil society and international non-governmental organization) deficiencies:

“ Arguably, contemporary terrorism and the other anti-systemic forces created by globalization are symptomatic of the institutional deficiencies within all three governance domains and not likely to yield to traditional power structures of twentieth century international relations (no matter how much firepower the United States has and can project).”[14]

While the cold-war produced the “bi-polar” world (Western Block against Eastern Block), and the post-cold war engendered the “uni-polar” world with the US as the undisputed superpower, the 21st Century is confronted by a “tri-polar” world where power is shared among states, markets, and civil society or non-state actors. Although terrorist groups are not civil in their actions, they can structurally fit in the civil society domain since they operate outside the state-sphere.


War or organized violence is an immensely lucrative business. Of all items on sell in the global economy none generates greater income than weapons ranging from guns to jet fighters. Arms factories employ people with specialized skills. There is more to war than meets the eye. Terrorism has also become a huge business empire. Below are some figures:[15]

• In 2013 Kenya allocated $846 million for security expenditure
• By 2012 al-Shabab used to collect about $25 million fees from Kisimayu port
• Al-Shabab is believed to have benefitted from the annual $53 million piracy booty
• The European Union Naval Force Somalia budget since 2010 totaled $54 million
• The 600-acre US Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti has a $1.2 billion budget for the next 25 years
• France and Japan pay $41 million each to Djibouti for the lease of their respective bases

And this is only in the Horn of Africa. Imagine what goes on in the Sahel region, the Great Lakes region and Nigeria with Boko Haram. With the recent attack on Paris, mention was made of the smuggling of illegal arms across Belgium that terrorists can access with ease.

Not only has violence been commodified but commodities are also used for violence. More than ever before has technology been used to manufacture sophisticated tools of violence. Destructive power on an unprecedented scale is possible thanks to “… the technology of destruction represented by the nuclear and high-tech weapons systems, which have the potential to annihilate human species many times over.”[16] Both terrorists and sovereign states have in their hands lethal weapons of mass destruction and it is not clear who should point a finger to the other. With increasing innovations in ICT, it is not inconceivable to imagine cyber warfare replacing the much feared nuclear war.


After the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in New York, the Bush Administration declared a war on terror. Shortly after, the US launched attacks on Afghanistan where Al-Qaeda had its base. The other country on the US hit list was Iraq where Saddam Hussein was believed to have weapons of mass destruction. This US declaration of war on terror brought to the fore a crucial debate on unilateralism and multilateralism. George Bush’s famous phrase: “You are either with us or against us” became a household phrase. Other developments came along this “declaration of war on terror” such as: legitimate means to extract information from terror suspects; individual liberties such as privacy (whether the state security should tap phone conversations); tight border controls and excessive search at airports; whether political activism can be classified as terrorism; and many others. Clearly the war on terror did increase terror all over the world as fear and insecurity got magnified, and the Bush Administration tackled the ‘axis of evil.’

Commenting on the post-9/11 Bush Administration’s war on terror, Mary Kaldor had the following to say: “Essentially the attacks on September 11 legitimized a new global unilateralism and military activism, a reversion to the reflexes of the centralized war-making state, a way of renewing governmental support when earlier national bargains were breaking down.”[17] With the war on terror, humanity is once again faced with the terror of war in countries such as Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Mali, and Nigeria. With the war on terror civil society groups have embarked on campaigns for human rights, humanitarianism and international criminal justice system amidst gross violations of human rights and crimes against humanity. Global civil society suggests some alternatives to war that are worth considering. Among them are:[18] supporting local political constituencies to bring about regime change in case of criminal or illegitimate leaders; strengthening international humanitarian law; enhancing capacity for multilateral international law enforcement; commitment to global social justice.

If the war on terror succeeds in stimulating more terror attacks turning terrorists into heroes, but also hampering individual liberties seriously, then the war on terror would have been lost. Might there be other long term institutional options other than war? There is yet another ethical issue of just war theory. For a war to be considered just there are some conditions inter alia: 1) War should be tried after all other means have failed or war as a last resort; 2) The means used should not cause more harm than the good intended—principle of proportionality; 3) There should be reasonable hope of success. It is not clear whether the war on terror meets these criteria.


A quick glance at the state democracy within states indicates that the process of democratization suffers from serious contradictions. There is increasing decline in the percentage of people who show up to vote even among developed nations. This raises the question of legitimacy of those in power and the policies they make. Mention was also made about the increasing power of non-state actors (NGOs, corporations, civil society organizations) who do not even vote. But the greater challenge facing democracy is at the global level or in the international system. This is why some scholars are now beginning to think of other movements that can influence policies in the area of environment, security, human rights and social justice. As Daniele Archibugi the leading architect of cosmopolitics has indicated: “…something more than internal democracy is called for if we are to attempt to solve the social, political and environmental problems facing the world. What is needed is the democratization of the international community, a process joining together states with different traditions, at varying stages of development.”[19]

Cosmopolitical democracy does not aim at destroying sovereign states, but rather increasing democratic space, such that democracy can be exercised within the state, among states and at the world level.[20] The main principle here is participation at all levels, that makes democratic processes thick, without leaving a vacuum anywhere. The assumption behind this cosmopolitical democracy is that terrorism is born of frustration with the world system the marginalizes and excludes people in the periphery both socially and epistemologically.

There is a lesson from the European Union. EU was formed for the following main reasons:[21] 1) To prevent the wars that had devastated Europe especially during the two world wars; 2) To strengthen Europe within the international context; 3) To prevent the expansion of the communist system toward Western Europe. Some questions need to be posed: Not only Europe was affected by the two world wars, so why not work out a world system that would prevent wars in the entire world? Why strengthen Europe alone within the international system instead of strengthening the whole international system? The prevention of the expansion of the communist system toward Western Europe is clearly what gave rise to the cold-war and its proxy wars across the globe including Africa. It is clear that the quest for continental interests as opposed to global interests is what has generated tension in the world order and given rise to superpower rivalry. While one is designing strategies to protect one’s interests, others are scheming along the same lines.

The world has faced horrendous wars and genocides and now is faced with terrorism. With increasing globalization it is increasingly clear that security threat in one country or region is a security threat to other countries or regions. Extreme poverty and deprivation in one part of the world creates favorable conditions for radicalization of poor and marginalized youth, as well as fertile ground for training extremist groups. A new international political economy is timely. No need to invent the wheel since there are some models to emulate. The League of Nations gave rise to the United Nations system as a strategy to coordinate international interventions for peace and progress of the entire world. Regional blocks such as the African Union (AU) and the Eastern African Community, just like the EU demonstrate that working together is much better than working in isolation. Why not take this regional integration and international system models to a higher level?

The EU follows what is called “functional federalism” whereby “…sovereign democratic regimes progressively cede authority over certain spheres of governance to a higher instance.”[22] This means that respective leaders and citizens of nation-states need to be aware that sovereignty is not an absolute value. Setting up a common market that allows free movement of goods, services, capital and labor, provides greater benefits to a country that subjects itself to a regional integration policy framework. Finally, a common currency can be agreed upon. If this arrangement can be done at a continental level, why not at a global level?

A question might be raised that the globe is too vast. But there is also the principle of subsidiarity, whereby the higher authority can only intervene when an issue cannot be resolved at a lower level. Other issues usually raised to challenge such a global governance model is that countries vary in terms of culture and economic development. But this argument can also be raised at the national level where there is never a uniform culture and same level of economic development among different parts of the country.

For such an international political economy to succeed it requires an economic philosophy or model. Since the neoliberal model has not worked for the good of all, and communism or state-controlled model has also failed, better to try to a middle ground, the social market economy. This is a hybrid model that combines elements of free market but also some form of state intervention to ensure that neither the big corporations nor the government exert too much dominance over the citizens. This is because both excessive centralized economic planning and excessive liberalism are detrimental to sustainable development. This is again to stress that neither individual liberties nor state-sovereignty are absolute values.

If global challenges such as climate change, terrorism, extreme poverty and state-failure are to be addressed with timely and long term solutions, there is need for a global governance framework akin to the European Union model. But for this to succeed, individual states must sacrifice some of their national interests for the greater global common good.

How will the new global governance architecture or cosmopolitics look like? It will constitute of two forms of integration: vertical and horizontal. At the horizontal level in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, it will include segments of civil society that include faith-based organizations, cultural institutions, NGOs that work with local communities. At the political level, sub-regional groups such as SADC, EAC, and ECOWAS will also work to create horizontal linkages among states that have relatively equal levels of economic growth. But these respective countries will need to harmonize their electoral, democratic and economic policies.

At the vertical level, there are two layers of integration: at the continental level and at the global level. Here individual states will subject themselves to higher global rules and policies thus cede part of their national sovereignty for the greater global common good, so as to collectively address global challenges such as terrorism, poverty, ecological crises and sate-fragility. At this level global civil society organizations that operate across countries would also take part in policy formulation and norm setting though some form of representation, depending on their constituency and institutional capacity.


Global terrorism as the recent attacks on Paris have demonstrated is a great challenge that sovereign states have to deal with, and yet no single nation state is able to solve the issue of terrorism. The first step in addressing terrorism is to know its nature and dynamics. Secondly, it is to situate the discussion on terrorism in the broader context of globalization and international political economy. Third, it is to locate the discussion on terrorism in the framework of power and its dynamics. Moreover there is a new conception of power as seduction, known as “soft power.”

The concept of cosmopolitical democracy helps us to think beyond the sovereign state as the main actor in international relations given the new forces of globalization. If more actors can be included in shaping world events by contributing to policy formulation at the global level, this can go a long way to alleviate the impulse to use violence, as extremist groups are doing.

Faced with the challenge of terrorism some scholars have come up with an alternative vision called “democratic transnationalism” that “…attempts to draw on the successes of democratic, particularly multinational democratic, domestic orders as a model for achieving human security in the international sphere.”[23] Democratic transnationalism does not claim to re-event the wheel, since the principles that it takes at the global level have been around for decades: human rights, rule of law, and representative participation. The proposed Global Parliamentary Assembly (GPA) does not seem far- fetched since the UN General Assembly in fact looks like a world executive body, since it is comprised of heads of state. Why not create a global parliament with representatives elected from the respective countries using the principle of universal adult suffrage but not tied to a particular political party? This is to help end what many consider as exclusive membership clubs of UN agencies such as IMF, World Bank, and WTO.

*Odomaro Mubangizi (PhD) teaches philosophy and theology at the Institute of Philosophy and Theology in Addis Ababa where he is also Dean of the Department of Philosophy.

[1] Joseph Nye, JR., Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: Public Affairs, 2003), x.
[2] Ibid., xi.
[3] Hanna Arendt, On Violence (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. 1969), 10-11.
[4] Baffour Ankomah “How Africa Can Beat Terrorism” in New African, June 2014, 7.
[5] Yoshikazu Sakamoto, “Democratization, Social Movements and World Order” in Björn Hetten, International Political Economy (London: Zed Books, 1995), 131.
[6] Ibid.
[7] “Interview with Fr. Thomas Michel, S.J. Secretary of Interreligious Dialogue” in Chiedza Journal of Arrupe College, Vol. 1, No. 1, April, 1998, 57.
[8] Mahmood Mamdani, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the cold War, and the Roots of Terror (Kampala: Fountain Publishers, 2004), 229.
[9] Quoted in Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalization (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2003)
[10] Ibid., 8.
[11] Sakamoto, Op. cit., 134.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] James P. Muldoon, Jr., The Architecture of Global Governance: An Introduction to the Study of International Organizations (Oxford: Westview Press, 2004), 272.
[15] Wanjohi Kabukuru “The Business of Terrorism” in New African, June 2014, 24-25.
[16] Sakamoto, Op. cit., 131-132.
[17] Mary Kaldor, Global Civil Society: An Answer to War (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003), 150.
[18] Ibid. 156-158.
[19] Daniele Archibugi, “Cosmopolitical Democracy” in Daniel Arhibugi et al, Debating Cosmopolitics (London: Verso, 2003). 7.
[20] Ibid., 8.
[21] Alfons Calderón and Luis Sols “Europe at the Crossroads” CJ Booklet, 153, 2014, 13.
[22] Ibid. 18.
[23] Richard Falk and Andrew Strauss, “The Deeper Challenges of Global Terrorism: A Democratizing Response” in Archibugi et al., Op. Cit., 203.

Posted in FranceComments Off on ‘Pray for Paris’: Epistemology and political economy of global terrorism

The roots of terror


Jim Miles

Yes, the attacks in Paris were brutal. But what of the terror that has been instigated in the name of empire? Is it less of terror to bomb cities, villages and country-sides? Is the control and manipulation of the financial world a morally justifiable act? Are ‘free trade’ agreements free when they subjugate poor nations to terms that essentially destroy them? Is the blatant theft of the resources of the Global South moral?

Civilians in Paris have been killed because of these imperial drives for power, just as tens, hundreds of millions before them have been killed in the past.
I was sickened to hear and watch the events occurring in France. Part of that was for the immediate families, friends and neighbors of those so needlessly killed. Another part was the fear factor; not fear of terror or for myself, but fear for how the powers that be would ratchet up the security control within their own societies by using their own biased racist fear factors in order to rationalize it to control their own populations. A wider perspective is the sick feeling of realizing that humanity in general is capable of producing such atrocities.

The latter is where a large problem arises within our supposedly ‘civilized’ western world. It is not just the terrorists who are capable of atrocities against humanity; it is not just Muslim fanatics who are capable of terrorizing the west; it is not the ‘other’ who is capable of demonizing and killing their opponents. It is you and I and the societies that we support that are also capable of producing terror across large swathes of the world.

It is our history of moral superiority and technological advantage for which we, the ‘western’ world, the ‘civilized’ world, perceive ourselves as being superior—well, look at us, living lifestyles of comparative wealth and luxury to much of the world, of course we are superior. What is not contained within that narrative is that our wealth has much more to do with the imperial conquests by the European ‘west’ of various regions in order to extract their wealth of whatever sort. Our moral superiority is nothing more than a gloss of rhetoric over the motivation to use a superior military technology to subdue, conquer, and extract wealth from other regions and other peoples.

In short, the roots of terror lie within our own hands. Certainly other civilizations of past eras have done the same thing with their own versions of morality and technological advantages. That only underlines the idea that this is a human condition, with our current version apparently much more deadly than previous iterations of our collective and unrecognized heart of darkness.


Wherein, then, do the roots of terror lie, historically apart from within ourselves generally? One could trace the roots of terror back to the beginning of historical times, and then beyond into pre-history. But as we are supposedly a morally/technologically superior society today, the roots of today’s terror can arguably be traced back to World War I, its imperial atrocities on all sides, followed by the demise of the Ottoman Empire.

Before then, of course, is the whole colonial history concerning the conquest of the Americas and the subjugation of its indigenous population. Societies then, almost wholly European, used the same old same old tactics of arguing moral superiority while utilizing brutal technologies to subjugate and destroy native people. Africa was dealt the same deal, and while the indigenous populations were not destroyed, the slavery, resource extraction, and control of the physical land covered the entire continent. Most parts of Asia, whether the British in Southern Asia or the French in Southeast Asia, with the Portuguese and Dutch scattered throughout the region, underwent a similar colonial pattern.

World War I was effectively a clash of these empires trying to supersede the control of the other empires for the wealth and power of the rest of the world. From that war rose the divisions of the Middle East by the British and French into either outright control or spheres of influence ranging from the Sykes-Picot secret agreement through to the League of Nations mandates. The Versailles peace, while it ‘worked’ for some, failed miserably for others, not meeting the ideals of the Wilsonian rhetoric about all nationalities deciding their own futures democratically.

Because of that failure, World War II became the last and largest battle of World War I, witnessing again a change in the imperial overlords. Politically, financially, and economically, the U.S. became the dominant power gaining control of Europe through NATO, and using a combination of military and financial tactics to try and gain control of the rest who were not willing to submit to U.S. dominance. The readings of history are widely available, with various interpretations, with the general trend being one of an artificial moral superiority, combined with powerful economic forces (Bretton Woods, World Bank, IMF, WTO, OECD, et al), all sustained through covert and overt military actions.


The collapse of the Soviet Union is probably the most current historical turning point. It left the U.S. and its partners as the heirs apparent to being the global hegemon. A global peace would surely ensue; it was the ‘end of history’. Unfortunately the same imperial imperative from centuries past survived and thrived with what was supposed to become the New World Order. It played out militarily through the designs of the Grand Chessboard, rather than through the logic of orderly trade and cultural interaction searching for a better understanding of each other’s cultures.

Arguably, the 9/11 attacks on the WTC could be labeled as a more important inflection point of history, but it is more readily seen as a culmination of blowback from actions taken by the global imperial hegemon after the collapse of the Soviet Union. That incident released powerful forces already prepared, ready to be set in motion. It was the ‘New Pearl Harbor’ desired by the authors of the Project for a New American Century (Kristol, Feith, Kagan, Wolfowiz, Woolsey, Rumsfield, Bolton, Perle) who had been around since Reagan’s tenure. It allowed the rapid passing of the Homeland Security Act, one so large it had to be by necessity ready to go for such a framework. It ramped up the rogue nature of U.S. military and corporate actions globally, as their infamous ‘with us or against us’ paradigm turned everything black and white, losing all perspectives of grey or color.

The ultimate goal was global hegemony, the containment and or destruction of both Russia and China, the unparalleled support of Israel, and the demonization of all things Islamic. It was applied ruthlessly through all means of military operations, through the manipulation of international standards (e.g. the so called ‘right to protect’ doctrine), through the manipulation of financial markets and last but not least, the outright control of the mainstream media and its acquiescence, indeed promotion of, imperial rhetoric.


Fortunately we are at another inflection point in history—not fortunate for the depth of its current and potential violence—fortunate in that the ‘rest of the world’ has acted against the imperial overdrive of the U.S. and its imperial cohorts and satraps.

Yes, the attacks in Paris were brutal, vicious and intended to terrorize. But what of the terror that has been instigated in the name of empire, the empire in which you and I live? Is it less of a terror tactic to bomb cities, villages, and countrysides indiscriminately as in the Vietnam War? Are we more ‘civilized’ now that we pretend to use smart weapons? Is shock and awe a feature of technological morality making us superior to the thousands killed immediately, with millions more affected in subsequent years? Is the use of hyperbaric bombs, cluster munitions, white phosphorous, depleted uranium munitions, Hellfire missiles, dense inert metal explosives—all used by ‘civilized’ western powers in the wars of the Middle East and beyond—is that being more civilized?

Similarly is the control and manipulation of the financial world a morally justifiable act? Are ‘free trade’ agreements anything but free when they subjugate the junior partner to both financial and legislative/legal terms that essentially destroy sovereignty? Is our lifestyle, predicated on consumption, living within a rentier extractive economy (living in debt), buying cheap resources and goods from countries subject to financial and military imperial overdrive—is that how we rationalize our moral superiority?

This is understood by some of the world. It is seldom if ever recognized within the mainstream media, except for the odd occasion when a ‘balanced’ report is made on a situation in which there is no balance. What is being recognized, slowly and without huge rhetorical counter-attack, is that there is, fortunately, no longer a single global hegemon, even as they remain desirous to attempt it.

Putin asked at the UN, “Do you know what you have done?” They have created an empire of chaos that serves certain sectors well but for the most part to a level of violence not witnessed for several generations, that could—if the right wing rhetoric and bluster of U.S. presidential candidates holds any meaning—could lead to the end of the world as we know it. The mujahedeen “freedom fighters” of Reagan have morphed through the Taliban to al-Qaeda into the current ISIS iteration.

These groups have all been supported by the U.S.: certainly the mujahedeen from which the Taliban; less so al-Qaeda other than as a useful ‘other’ as an excuse to combat on a global scale yet supported by longtime ally, the medieval tribal monarchy of Saudi Arabia; and as can be extrapolated from current actions against ISIS who have proven to be a convenient destabilizer against Assad, receiving U.S. military aid indirectly through Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other partners.

As for France, it has been a willing partner in most if not all of these imperial endeavors. Asymmetric warfare has brought those endeavors to the ‘homeland’. France could have imposed martial law and locked the country down as more than likely would happen in the U.S. if a similar incident had occurred. In Canada the response has been measured and compassionate, a decided change from what would have happened if Harper was still in power and able to ramp up the terrorist fear factor. Fortunately, humanity also carries within itself an altruistic caring capacity towards others.

Just as the roots of terror lie within our own hands, so do the roots of an altruistic humanitarian outlook. That includes all humanity, indeed all of the global environment, and if nourished properly can result in the eventual reset to a more compassionate and caring social structure. I expect no miracles as the hatreds and animosities that have been developed by the control of the commons politically, financially, and militarily, presented with a subservient media, will not be easy to overcome.

What needs to be recognized is that we are all complicit partly through the acceptance of our lifestyles and what it is truly based on. As individuals sometimes not much can be achieved, but it becomes an individual responsibility to question authority, to question the raison d’etre of our moral judgements, and to be prepared to do our own search for the truth, however painful that truth may be to predetermined ideologies.

Civilians in Paris have been killed because of these imperial drives for power, just as tens, hundreds of millions before them have been killed in the past. The human condition, its extremes of pathos and joy, requires a recognition of a global responsibility towards each and every ‘other’ that exists. Take personal responsibility, think globally, act locally towards an era when perhaps the world will be at peace with one another.

Posted in FranceComments Off on The roots of terror

Attacks on the Muslim population, exploiting fear and paranoia

Juliana Barembuem

Since the terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13th, we have seen France declare a state of emergency, allowing the government to control its population more tightly, to order raids on any “suspicious” home (the security forces no longer requiring warrants for arrests and raids when investigating an “imminent threat”) and to curtail freedom in the home of alleged “Liberté”.

While the official story leaves much to be desired, has more holes than the walls of the raided apartment in St-Denis, and doesn’t prove conclusively that the attackers where only “islamic” terrorists, one thing you don’t hear much about in the media is how this has been affecting the Muslim population in France and other countries.

There are 5 million Muslims in France, about eight percent of the total population and they are suffering the consequences of attacks perpetrated by a handful of psychos, with no regard for the decades that they have been living peacefully in France like any ordinary “white” citizen.

Authorities, islamophobia and “mistakes”

More than 1000 raids have been conducted since France declared a state of emergency, on the evening of November 13th, and it is difficult to know how many were even remotely justified or “successful”. Some of these operations have been so unprofessional, unjustified and violent that outraged citizens have launched a campaign on social networks with the hashtag #PerquisitionnezMoi (RaidMe), an attempt to mock the lack of criteria upon which the authorities base their decisions on who to raid. For example, we learn in this article (in French), that:

Last Thursday, in Nice, the RAID police entered an apartment shooting pump-action guns, inside a building located rue Marceau. Two children and their father were sleeping in the bedroom next to the entrance. One of his daughters, sleeping in front of the door, got shot by the police. Fortunately, the shots only hurt her slightly in the neck and in the ear. The father, first handcuffed and made to lay on the floor, finally received an apology from the police who tried to pay for the damage caused. The authorities were looking for his nextdoor neighbor.

This little girl was six years old. But the police apologized, so it’s ok…

In the same article, we read the following:

In the Gard department, an intervention unit visited a house where a 56-year-old man of Muslim confession had been living for 14 years. The event […] traumatised the family living in that house:

My wife, my 16- and 12-year-old children and I were awakened by a noise. […] When I opened my window, I saw that it was the gendarmes. There were at least 50 gendarmes, some of them wore a mask, and some helmets. They had surrounded the entire neighborhood. The window in my daughter’s bedroom received a bullet impact. I heard her say, “Daddy, daddy, I was shot at!” […] They requested that my children and my wife lay down on their stomach. Then, approximately 30 gendarmes searched everywhere, making a giant mess. They treated me as if I was a terrorist. Several times I asked to be told what was going on, but nobody answered. They left at about 3.45 a.m. They must have been embarrassed, because they apologized. But it’s too late, the damage is done.

A publishing company that publishes Islamic books was also raided on November 21st. The operation lasted 10 hours; books were scanned and even sniffed by security dogs. Once again, after not finding anything, the police and the town authorities apologized, claiming that the “orders had come from way up high”.

A mosque in Aubervilliers was raided on the night of November 16th. The operation lasted from 12.30 am to 2.00 am, and was said to have been ordered by the town’s Prefect. The members of the mosque expressed their shock at seeing the damage that had been caused: “shattered windows, broken doors, furniture turned upside down, religious books thrown on the floor, un-plugged electronics, broken ceiling… amounting to several thousand euros in damages.” Once again (!!), it was a “mistake”. The authorities promised to refund the victims, and Prefect Philippe Galli claimed to issue an order for the police to “respect places of worship” during future RAIDS. How about NOT raiding them to begin with?

A restaurant in Val d’Oise, with 50 people sitting at their tables and having a nice meal with their loved ones, was raided by 40 police officers. You can view some images of their “friendly visit” here:

The owner was extremely helpful and even offered to lend them his keys so that they could open any door they wanted, instead of continuing to wreck the restaurant, as you can see in the images, but he never received a reply. In the meantime, customers were told to keep silent, with their hands on the table. Unable to find anything, the police showed the restaurant’s owner a Prefect warrant (better late than never!) and left.

These are just some of the examples. Are these cops, RAID agents and gendarmes really receiving “orders from way up high”, conned into embarrassing themselves in this way, just in order to have the authorities pretend that they are meticulously searching every corner of France in an attempt to find evil terrorists hidden under tables or inside cupboards (just like the US “tried to find” Osama bin-Laden supposedly hidden comfortably in a cave in Afghanistan, only to then stage his “death“)? It’s possible. It is also possible that another goal is to use tax-payers’ money to acclimatize the population to this kind of trauma, and in particular the Muslim population.

Islamophobia Rulz

I have stopped counting the attacks on Muslim citizens by other non-Muslim French citizens. The National Observatory of Islamophobia reported 32 anti-Muslim incidents during the week, as opposed to the “usual” 4-5 complaints per week. I suspect there have been more attacks than that, since another Muslim organization, the Collective against Islamophobia in France (CCIF), claims to be inundated with reports:

CCIF’s spokesman Yasser Louati said his office was inundated with reports and complaints from Muslims as well as calls asking for advice on whether it was safe to send children to school.

“Muslims have become the enemy within,” Louati said, adding that media attention to the incidents was uneven.

Indeed, it used to be enough to have an enemy “without” in order to justify the invasion, pillaging and conquering of other “evil” countries. But today, we have enemies running loose “within” as well, a perfect ground for sowing paranoia, fear and division.

Here you can read a summary of the most recent attacks perpetrated by non-Muslim French citizens against Muslim French citizens:

© France3

1. […] a man punched a young veiled woman in Marseille on Wednesday and slashed her clothes with a box cutter, calling her a terrorist, in an incident that was widely publicised.

2. But another veiled woman who was rammed by a shopping cart and kicked by an assailant inside a grocery store in a suburb of Lyon the same day did not make the national news, he said.

3. One day after the Paris attacks, six protesters broke off from an anti-migrant rally in Pontivy, a town in Brittany in northwestern France, to beat up a passing young man of North African origin.

4. […] another incident last Sunday morning in which a Turkish man standing near a kebab restaurant in Cambrai in northern France was reported shot in the back from a car flying a French flag, though his injuries were not serious.

“They’re looking for brown people,” Luoati said.

5. Anti-Muslim graffiti has also shown up in many places. In Evreux in northern France, the town hall and other buildings were daubed with graffiti saying “Death to Muslims” and “(with a) suitcase or (in a) coffin” – a reference to how the protesters wanted Muslims to leave town.

6. There were several reports of swastikas painted on outer walls of mosques, in the Paris area and in Pontarlier near the Swiss border. Social media also lit up with anti-Muslim and racist comments once Friday’s attacks became known.

And there are more:

7. A mosque was tagged with “blood red crosses” in Sahaba de Créteil (Val-de-Marne)

8. Ham and lard were thrown in front of the Pontarlier mosque’s door.

9. In Oloron-Sainte-Marie (Pyrénées-Atlantiques), both a praying center and a halal butcher shop were tagged with grafittis saying “France, wake up!” and “Long live a Free France”.

10. A kebab shop in Barentin (Seine-Maritime), and its delivery vehicule parked in front, were hit with stones.

11. A woman was filmed in a Parisian RER train, insulting a veiled Muslim woman, and saying “your clothes offend me” […] you can’t wear that […] Things will soon change [and you won’t be able to offend us anymore by wearing a veil]”.

The attacked victim tried her best to remain calm, and explained that she was a decent citizen, who worked for the State, and that she lived in a free country were she could wear whatever she wanted. A Muslim man (yes, beard and all! Run!) sitting close by had to jump in to her defense, and felt the need to explain that “we have nothing to do with the terrorist attacks”. The fact that it is even necessary to say it is mind boggling.

And the list goes on… not just in France, but in other countries as well. And prominent puppets politicians like Donald Trump have made a spectacle of themselves in this regard. Of course, refugees have also become the new targets.

Fear, Panic and hatred

So, who benefits? We know that the weapons industry stocks are soaring, that the Middle-East is in chaos thanks to our dear Western warmongers who have trained, funded and created monsters. We know that the official story of the Paris attacks doesn’t hold water. We know that European citizens are being deprived of their very basic rights. What comes next?

Louati, quoted above, has also said:

“France has declared a war on terrorism, but they chose the wrong enemy. Muslims are the first victims of terrorism throughout the world.”

Along with the emergency provisions in place for three months, President Francois Hollande last week called for additional “constitutional amendments”, saying France is in “a state of siege”.

Among those amendments are measures which include revoking the citizenship of convicted “terrorists” who carry dual nationalities and expelling foreigners deemed a “threat” by intelligence services.

Dinah PoKempner, the General Counsel for Human Rights Watch, added:

“We look to our leaders not for fear-mongering but for cool-headed assessments of what measures are necessary and proportionate for protection. […] In the coming weeks, [we] expect many proposals worldwide to curtail rights and expand surveillance in the name of counterterrorism.”

I don’t know about you, but I fear that the worst is still to come. Some politicians, like Nicolas Sarkozy, have tabled brilliant ideas like electronically tagging every “suspected terrorist”. The laws being drafted involve the creation of concentration “retention” camps for suspects. How far will the authorities be allowed to go? How many “mistaken” detentions will take place? It may take a while, of course, but I cannot see much hope for things getting any better.

I cannot help but think that this is at least part of the sick agenda of those who control our society, or at the very least, a happy consequence for them to exploit.

We have seen this happen in the US after the 911 attacks, and more recently during the Ferguson drama. It is very easy to sow division, fear and panic in the population, so that people will be more controllable, and ignore the REAL division that exists. But that division has nothing to do with race, religion or ethnicity; it is the very deep difference between psychopaths – human beings who lack the capacity for empathy – and those who are able to feel for others.

You can be easily manipulated into internalizing a psychopathic world view if you don’t realize what they are doing to your mind, and how they can rule you through your fears. You don’t need to be a psychopath yourself. Passive submission and compliance, and basically NOT caring, can do the trick and serve their purpose. I hope you don’t let that happen.

Posted in USA, EuropeComments Off on Attacks on the Muslim population, exploiting fear and paranoia

Weekly Report On Nazi Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory


1932 - How Hitler says 'legal' (Germany)

Nazi forces continue systematic crimes in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)


(19 – 25 November 2015)



  • ·Nazi forces have escalated the use of excessive force against peaceful protests

–         8 Palestinian civilians, including 3 children, were killed in the West Bank.

–         2 other civilians, including a child, succumbed to their injuries.

–         One of the killed civilians was attacked by Nazi Jewish settlers while a girl child was killed by Nazi police officers.

–         121 Palestinian civilians, including 29 children, 2 young women and 2 journalists, were wounded in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.


  • ·Nazi forces conducted 88 incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank and a limited one in the Gaza Strip.

–         166 Palestinian civilians, including 35 children, were arrested.

–         27 of them, including 14 children, were arrested in occupied Jerusalem.

–         Hebron Radio was closed for 6 months under the pretext of “incitement” and its contents were confiscated.

  • ·Nazi war planes targeted a training site in the central Gaza Strip, but no casualties were reported.
  • ·Nazi gunboats continued to target border areas and Palestinian fishermen in the Gaza Strip sea.


  • ·Illegal Settlement activities have continued in the West Bank.

–         Nazi Jewish Settlers attacked a house in al-Mazra’a village, northwest of Ramallah, with Molotov cocktails.


  • ·Nazi forces have turned the West Bank into cantons and continued to impose the illegal closure on the Gaza Strip for the 9th year.

–         Many temporary checkpoints were established in the West Bank and many others were re-established in a way obstructing the traffic.

–         8 Palestinian civilians, including 7 children and a woman, were arrested at checkpoints in the West Bank.


Nazi violations of international law and international humanitarian law in the oPt continued during the reporting period (19 – 25 November 2015).



Nazi forces have continued to commit crimes, inflicting civilian casualties. They have also continued to use excessive force against Palestinian civilians participating in peaceful protests in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the majority of whom were youngsters. Occupied East Jerusalem witnessed similar attacks. During the reporting period, Nazi forces and Nazi Jewish settlers killed 8 Palestinian civilians, including 3 children, in the West Bank, while 2 other civilians, including a child, succumbed to their injuries. Moreover, 121 Palestinian civilians, including 29 children, 2 young women and 2 journalists, were wounded. Thirty of whom, including 5 children and a journalist, were wounded in the Gaza Strip and the others were wounded in the West Bank. Concerning the nature of injuries, 100 civilians were hit with live bullets and 21 ones were hit with rubber bullets.

The full report is available online at:


Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on Weekly Report On Nazi Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Supreme Court admits British troops committed ‘mass murder’ in Malaya massacre


© Wikipedia
A wounded insurgent being held and questioned after his capture in 1952.

Relatives of ‘innocent’ Malayans slain by British troops in 1948 have lost their fight for an inquiry, but their lawyer says the UK courts have conceded ‘mass murder’ occurred.

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the appeal brought by relatives of the 23 men killed in the attack – referred to as Britain’s ‘My Lai’ after a similar atrocity carried out by US troops in Vietnam – would not be upheld.

The Malayan Emergency was fought from 1948 to 1960 in what is modern-day Malaysia between Commonwealth armed forces, including thousands of British troops, and anti-colonial guerrillas.

The UK’s involvement stemmed largely from British ties to tin and rubber interests which were seen as critical to the UK’s post-war recovery.

Men from the British Scots Guards regiment were responsible for the attack. The long campaign by the families of the victims has spilled into another row about when cases of colonial brutality are allowed to disappear into history.

John Halford, of Bindmans solicitors, representing the Batang Kali families, told the court: “On 12 December 1948, British soldiers left the bodies of 24 innocent, unarmed men riddled with bullets and the British government left their families without a credible explanation.”

He maintained the courts had denied the families an explanation but did acknowledge “the innocence of those killed, the failures to investigate and the ‘overwhelming’ evidence of mass murder.”

Halford said the UK has been found responsible and should now apologize, “withdraw the false account given to parliament,” and address the issue “including by funding a memorial.”

“If it does not, the blood of those killed at Batang Kali will indelibly stain the concept of British justice.”

Speaking to RT, one veteran of the conflict also criticized the court’s response.

Walter Heaton, 84, who was sent to Malaya in 1948 with the Scots Guard sister regiment the Coldstream Guards, told RT there is “no run-out date on justice.”

“Murder is murder. There should [be] no limit on justice,” he said, questioning why dire conditions in the “concentration” camps used to forcibly house Malayans were not discussed more in the case.

At a prison-like facility named Kampong Coldstream, which was run by his regiment, Heaton said conditions were awful. People were only put there after being rounded up in clearance operations.

He recalled watching “kids crying as soldiers burned their food and their things,” before taking the families away to the camps.

Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court, ruled the case is too old to re-open, a move which could affect a number of cases of abuse and violence by British security forces during the Northern Irish Troubles.

Neuberger conceded the “evidence that came to light” was “compelling and suggests that the killings were unlawful” but said the shootings had occurred before a crucial ‘right to petition’ was recognized by British courts.

In April, ahead of the appeal, Halford said “when six of [the soldiers] have confessed to murder, eyewitnesses remain alive and forensic tests can confirm the killings were close-range executions, the law should demand an answer from the state.”

“After all, those killed were British subjects living in a British-protected state,” he added.

Posted in Far East, UKComments Off on Supreme Court admits British troops committed ‘mass murder’ in Malaya massacre

Who Arranged Mumbai Attacks?


Image result for Mumbai Attacks PHOTO

By Sajjad Shaukat

On November 26, 2008, several persons were killed in the simultaneous terror attacks in

Mumbai. Without any investigation, Indian high officials and media had started blaming

Under the cover of the Mumbai catastrophe, India began a deliberate propaganda campaign

against Pakistan and tried to isolate the latter in the comity of nations by showing that Islamabad

was sponsoring terrorism in India. In this regard, Indian former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh

and its other high officials, while repeating old rhetoric of baseless allegations, stated that

Pakistan has “epicenter of terrorism” and Islamabad should “end infrastructure of terrorism.”

L.K. Advani, leader of the BJP, while accusing Pakistan as the hotbed of terror in the region, said

that Pakistan’s secret agency ISI should be declared a terror outfit.

In this respect, Indian top officials and TV channels had remarked that Indian Mujahideen and

the banned Lashkar-e-Tayba based in Pakistan and ISI were behind the Mumbai terror attacks.

With the assistance of Indian secret agency RAW, Indian investigators fabricated a false story

that 10 terrorists who executed Mumbai carnage came in a boat from Karachi and were in

contact with the members of the banned Lashker-e-Taiba through phone calls. But a number of

questions arise in relation to the so-called links, deliberately entangling Pakistan. First, how it is

possible that the militants phoned 100 times inside Pakistan, but they did not call their families?

Second, the lonely gunman Ajmal Kasab who was arrested, knew his address and why he did not

indicate the names and home addresses of other 9 fugitives with whom he lived for a long time?

Third, after the hard journey of more than 50 hours, traveling on the slow moving water, evading

20 coastal guards of Indian Navy, how they reached Mumbai? Fourth, where did they change

their muddy shoes and wet dresses? Fifth, how it became possible that they immediately hired a

taxi and reached their targets, without taking some rest? Sixth, why the terrorists killed only four

people at the Nariman house, sparing the other six guys present there?

Availing the pretext of the Mumbai catastrophe, New Delhi had suspended the process of

‘composite dialogue’ in wake of its highly provocative actions like mobilization of troops.

Islamabad had also taken defensive steps to meet any Indian prospective aggression or surgical

strikes. But, India failed in implementing its aggressive plans, because Pakistan also possesses

However, in the post-Mumbai terror attacks, Indian rulers had started blackmailing Islamabad

that they would not resume the talks unless Islamabad takes actions against the culprits of

Mumbai mayhem. New Delhi urged Islamabad to arrest the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror

attacks. Rejecting Pakistan’s stand that its government or any official agency was not involved in

the Mumbai attacks, New Delhi wanted to make Islamabad accept all other Indian demands since

our rulers admitted that Ajmal Kasab was Pakistani national. In fact, Islamabad’s admission

which had emboldened New Delhi was forced by the US. And, Ajmal Kasab was tortured by the

Indian intelligence agencies so as to endorse Indian false story against Islamabad, while giving

statement in an Indian court. Suppose, even if he was Pakistani, it did not matter because he was

a non-state actor, as non-state actors like smugglers and the militants are found in many

It is of particular attention that on July 19, 2013, the Indian former home ministry and ex-

investigating officer Satish Verma disclosed that terror attacks in Mumbai in November 26, 2008

and assault on Indian Parliament in January 12, 2001 were carried out by the Indian government

to strengthen anti-terrorism laws.

It has clearly proved that Indian secret agencies; particularly RAW arranged coordinated terror

attacks in Mumbai and orchestrated that drama only to defame Pakistan in the world, but also to

fulfill a number of other aims.

It is notable that renowned thinkers, Hobbes, Machiavelli and Morgenthau opine that sometimes,

rulers act upon immoral activities like deceit, fraud and falsehood to fulfill their countries’

selfish aims. But such a sinister politics was replaced by new trends such as fair-dealings,

reconciliation and economic development. Regrettably, India is still following past politics in

It is mentionable that during the talks between the prime ministers of India and Pakistan, at Ufa,

Islamabad has conveyed to New Delhi a comprehensive agenda to discuss all outstanding issues,

including Kashmir as well as terrorism. But, New Delhi’s insistence to restrict the agenda for the

dialogue to terrorism or cross-border terrorism only, demonstrated India’s confused policy

Indian foreign secretary level talks were held in Islamabad on March 3, 2015. In this context,

Indian External Affairs Secretary Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and Pakistani Foreign Secretary

Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry discussed contentious issues including Jammu and Kashmir, Siachen,

Sir Creek and other bilateral issues. While, last year, India postponed the Secretary level talks

with Pakistan; under the pretext that during his Indian visit Sartaj Aziz met Kashmiri leaders.

In fact, a lack of seriousness on India’s part to settle all disputes, especially Kashmir issue has

compelled New Delhi to follow a self-contradictory and confused strategy towards Islamabad.

Hence, New Delhi earnestly found various pretexts to cancel peace talks, while shifting the

blame to Islamabad. For example, besides Mumbai attacks, in 2002, under the pretension of

terrorist attack on the Indian parliament, India postponed the dialogue process.

Particularly, on May 27, 2014, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s meeting with Pakistan’s

Prime Minister Nawaz Shariff in the oath-taking ceremony proved faultless, because Modi raised

baseless issues like terrorism as pre-condition to advance the Pak-Indian dialogue. He said that

slow pace of trial against the terrorists of the Mumbai 26/11 terror case; being held in Pakistan is

As regards the case of cross-border terrorism, India has shown ambivalent approach which can

be judged from various recent developments. In this connection, on July 27, 2015, three gunmen

dressed in army uniforms killed at least seven people, including three civilians and four

policemen in the Indian district of Gurdaspur, Punjab.

Without any investigation, Indian high officials and media started accusing Pakistan, its banned

militant outfits and intelligence agencies for the Gurdaspur incident. Indian Police remarked that

the attackers are from Indian-held Kashmir, and some said that they were Sikh separatists, while

Indian Punjab police chief claimed that the three gunmen were Muslim, but as yet unidentified.

Contradicting speculations, India’s Home Minister Rajnath Singh told parliament that the

Khalistan Movement Chief Manmohan Singh stated that the Gurdaspur incident is “a conspiracy

of Indian secret agency RAW to defame Pakistan.”

Besides, in the recent past, prior to the US President Obama’s second visit to New Delhi, Indian

intelligence agencies orchestrated a boat drama to defame Pakistan, allegedly reporting that a

Pakistani fishing boat as a Pakistan-based outfit group Lashkar-e-Taiba was intercepted by

Indian Coast Guards, off the coast of Porebandar, Gujarat. And Indian Coast Guard crew set the

boat on fire and it exploded. But, its reality exposed Indian terrorism, because, some Indian high

officials admitted that there was no such boat which came from Pakistan.

Similarly, India intends to obtain various hidden purposes by blaming Islamabad for terrorism.

First of all, it wants to divert the attention of the international community from the involvement

of RAW which has well-established its network in Afghanistan, and is fully assisting cross-

border incursions and terror-activities in various regions of Pakistan through Baloch separatist

elements, Jundullah and Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) including their affiliated outfits. On a

number of occasions, these insurgent groups claimed responsibility for their acts of sabotage.

It is worth-mentioning that Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif accompanied

by the DG of ISI went to Kabul on December 17, 2014. During his meeting with his Afghan

counterpart, President Ashraf Ghani and the ISAF commander, he presented the evidence of

linkage between the massacre of children at Peshawar school and TTP sanctuaries in

Afghanistan. He also asked about action against the TTP and handing over of its chief Mullah

It is regrettable that New Delhi is destabilizing the regional countries in general and Afghanistan

and Pakistan in particular. In order to obtain its secret designs, aimed at augmenting Indian

hegemony in the region, India is foiling the peace process between Afghanistan and Pakistan by

managing terrorist attacks like the recent ones in Afghanistan which revived old blame game

And, waging a prolonged war in Afghanistan, the US and other NATO countries have realized

that after the withdrawal of foreign troops, Afghanistan would be thrown in an era of uncertainly

and civil war. They recognize the fact and terrorism or stability in Pakistan and Afghanistan is

interrelated. Hence, US-led developed nations which also spent billions of dollars for the

development of Afghanistan have repeatedly agreed that without Islamabad’s help, stability

cannot be achieved there. In this regard, a meeting was hosted by Pakistan between the Afghan

officials and representatives of Tehreek-e-Taliban Afghanistan in Murree (On July 8, this year)

and dialogue were conducted for an Afghan-owned peace and reconciliation process, while the

representatives of China and America also participated in the meeting.

In this backdrop of growing engagements of Pakistan, Afghanistan, China and US, Indian

desperation in Afghanistan is increasing. Moreover, New Delhi is trying to sabotage the China-

Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Recent terror-attacks in Pakistan and Balochistan might be

noted as instance. Indian RAW has also created a heavily funded China-Pakistan and

Afghanistan specific desk to target growing Pak-China-Afghanistan relations.

Furthermore, on the direction of the Indian leader of the fundamentalist party BJP and Prime

Minister Modi, Indian forces have accelerated unprovoked shelling across the Line of Control

and Working Boundary, while creating war-like situation between Pakistan and India.

Notably, Islamabad has raised the question of Indian cross-border terrorism and RAW

involvement in Pakistan at the UNO forum, with strong evidence which was also shown to the

Without any doubt, we can conclude that Mumbai attacks of November 26, 2008 were arranged


Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants,

Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations


Posted in IndiaComments Off on Who Arranged Mumbai Attacks?

Double Game Franchised Al-Qaeda and ISIS?



By Sajjad Shaukat

Everyone knows that Al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban were created by the American CIA to fight

against the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

In this regard, former British Foreign secretary, Robin Cook stated, “Throughout the 1980s, he

[Bin Laden] was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian

occupation of Afghanistan.”

The then US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski met Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin

Laden and said about the militants (Mujahideen), “We know of their deep belief in God, and we

are confident their struggle will succeed…because, you are fighting against the infidel Russians.”

However, after fulfilling their interests, Washington had left Afghanistan in particular and

Pakistan in general to face the fallout of a prolonged conflict—terrorism and instability. These

Mujahideen who pulled the Russians out of Afghanistan, later become the Taliban, Al- Qaeda

(New version) and the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS or ISIL etc. They got the label of terrorists.

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, American former President Bush (The Senior) in

connivance with his Zionist-advisers took the Islamic fundamentalism as a great threat. Since

then, sometimes, Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have continuously been used by the US and some

western countries as a scapegoat to malign Pakistan for ‘de-nuclearisation,’ as the latter is the

only nuclear country in the Muslim World. Sometimes, bogey of Al-Qaeda is raised to achieve

their goals of external policy, and sometimes to pacify their public including the opposition. In

all cases, the purpose behind has been to safeguard the interests of the Zionists and Israel.

As regards the US double game, in December 2001, Bin Laden was within the reach of US

troops in Tora Bora. But, they did not pursue him, and as per direction of their leader opened the

door for his escape to Pakistan.

The Christian Science Monitor in its February 06, 2002 edition, while describing the battle at

Tora Bora, concluded that “Bin Laden escaped to Iran.” It had coincided with the US concerns

that Iran is harboring Al-Qaeda refugees. As part of the deliberate game, America’s war-

mongering diplomacy against Tehran was justified.

On November 13, 2009, a Reuters report quoting Labeviere’s book “Corridors of Terror”

(Released in November 2003) points to negotiations between Bin Laden and CIA, which took

place two months prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks-at the American Hospital in Dubai,

United Arab Emirates, when Bin Laden was under a kidney dialysis treatment.

Meanwhile, while making Osama and Al-Qaeda as scapegoats, a number of fake video messages

were telecast on various TV channels and websites by some Zionists to obtain Israel’s anti-

Muslim goals. For example, during the November 2004 elections in the US, a fake video tape

helped the ex-president George W. Bush to get lead over John Kerry.

It is well-known that in a tape released on December 27, 2001, the authenticity of which is not in

question, Osama denied any involvement in the September 11 tragedy. However, later, two video

tapes appeared to validate his guilt in relation to 9/11, because the main aims of the Bush

administration were to provoke American public against the Muslims and to justify global war

on terror—the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq to possess energy resources of Central Asia

and Iraq, including proxy wars in other Middle Eastern countries and to get their support for a

propaganda campaign against Pakistan and Iran. Besides other actions of Bush era such as

America’s state-sponsored terrorism in the volatile Islamic countries, persecution of Muslims

through torture, detentions and arrests, CIA and FBI-operated facilities, radicalising the western

Christians against the Muslims, while providing a golden chance to Tel Aviv to accelerate the

systematic genocide of the Palestinians—protecting the real architects of the 9/11 tragedy.

Recall, just after the September 11 disaster, Bush and Zionist-controlled media deliberately

developed chauvinism among the Americans. There had been an organised campaign against the

Muslims in the US and other western countries. Its main themes were that Islam and the Muslims

were the true cause of terrorism.

Anti-Muslim move could also be judged from an article, titled: ‘Their Target: The Modern

World’, published in the special issue of American weekly, ‘Newsweek’ in which Prof. Francis

Fukuyama (The author of ‘The End of History and the Last Man’) wrote, “The real enemy:

radical Islamists intolerant of all diversity and dissent, have become fascists of our day and that

is what we are fighting against.”

It was because of the dual strategy of Bush through war on terror—on global and regional level,

which continued by various tactics of state terrorism and on the other side, response of Al-Qaeda

militants by clandestine terror attacks, as shown through a number of the past suicidal missions

such as on Indonesian resort island of Bali, Saudi Arabia, Spain and a series of bomb attacks on

London’s transport network etc., including those ones in other Afro-Asian countries have clearly

pointed out that Al-Qaeda was organized on world level. But, the outfit lost control on its

affiliated militant groups. Al-Qaeda’s decimated old guard may no longer be able to mount

elaborately detailed plots, executed by other trained terrorists of various new groups which claim

their links with Al-Qaeda, but, are not under its direct command. For example, in

Somalia—splitting away of a hardliner-faction Al-Shabaab is an offshoot of the Islamic Courts

Union. The US defined Al-Shabaab as Al-Qaida allies. The reality is that there have been

militant groups in Africa which have described themselves as being Al-Qaida. Some have been

associated with the core of Bin Laden’s ideology and were involved in early Al-Qaida

In this connection, about the two bombs which blew the 18-story headquarters of the British-

owned HSBC bank and the British consulate in Istanbul in November, 2003, Turkish officials

had remarked that these were the work of homegrown extremists.

In March 2004, the former CIA Director, George Tenet said, “Al-Qaeda has become a loose

collection of regional networks working autonomously-[they] pick their own targets, they plan

their own attacks…in this new phase of franchise terrorism, Al-Qaeda has been described as an

idea rather than an organization.”

In fact, there are several groups of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and Taliban like Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan

(TTP). Some of them are being used by secret agencies like CIA, Israeli Mossad and Indian

RAW to obtain the collective and individual designs of their countries against Pakistan, Middle

East and other Muslim countries. But, like the double game of America, Israel and India, Al-

Qaeda, ISIS and TTP also play double game. The leaders of these militant outfits work for these

secret agencies, while, they motivate the common Muslims for suicide attacks and terror-related

activities as part of Jihad. Otherwise, Jihad does not permit suicide attacks. Like other religions,

Islam is a religion of peace and prohibits any sort of terrorism.

Iraq-based ISIS which itself broke away from Al-Qaeda, proclaimed a worldwide caliphate by its

leader Abu Baker al-Baghdadi, on 29 June 2014. ISIS’s criminal actions had widely been

criticized in the world, with many Islamic communities judging the group to be unrepresentative

of Islam. One of ISIS’s goals has been to establish a radical Sunni Islamic state in Iraq and Syria

Jordan, Palestine etc. (Levant region). It has been used by the US and Israel for distorting the

image of Islam and for inciting the feelings of western Christians and Kurds against Muslims.

For the purpose, like Al-Qaeda, it is widely known for its violent acts and propaganda which

includes Internet videos of beheadings etc. However, besides some Islamic countries, a majority

of the religious extremists (Muslims) from the western world joined the ISIS. In this context,

oblivion on the part of the west about ISIS recruits from their countries is questionable.

Nevertheless, if the double game of President Bush (The Senior) and George W. Bush franchised

Al-Qaeda on global level, President Obama’s dual policy franchised both Al-Qaeda and ISIS as

part of the anti-Muslim campaign and left no stone unturned in advancing the agenda of the

Zionists, Israeli lobbies and the neoconservatives in the pretext of global war on terror. Secretly,

Obama authorized CIA to create ISIS. His perennial covert support to the Israeli atrocities on the

Palestinians, Gaza blockade, silence over the supply (Smuggling) of oil by ISIS to some

European countries, toppling the elected government in Egypt, creation of more collapsed states

such as Libya, Syria, Yemen etc., CIA-assisted Al-Qaeda (Al-Nusra Front) and ISIS militants,

continued sectarian violence and prolonged engagement of its troops (NATO) in Afghanistan

might be cited as instance. Moreover, the Middle East was deliberately thrown in worst form of

terrorism and civil wars for achieving the goal of a greater Israel.

US-led Israeli entities were frustrated by the recent developments such as Russian airstrikes on

the ISIS terrorist’s installations in the northern Syria, Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, across the

Lebanon-Israeli border, Russian coalition with Iran, Iraq and Syria in support of President

Bashar al-Assad, retreat of the CIA-rebels and mercenaries, their failure to topple the Assad

regime, arrest of Israeli Col. Shahak in Iraq, his admission, proving links of Al-Qaeda and ISIS

with America and Israel (Israeli Mossad), including the Vienna meeting where the US Secretary

of State John Kerry agreed to keep the Syrian president in power, not to allow ISIS militant

group to reign in Syria and America’s decision of sending 50 special forces to Syria to help in

rooting out ISIS terrorists have clearly exposed the double game.

Thus, Russian President Vladimir Putin, in fact, exposed the US fake war on terror, saying that

the New World Oder agents—the Zionist regime in America and Israel have no cloths.

Besides, some recent developments such as decision of the Canadian-nominated new prime

minister Justin Trudeau to withdraw Canadian fighter jets from the US-led mission against ISIS,

British Prime Minister David Cameron’s announcement to abandon plans to carry out airstrikes

against ISIS positions in Syria, after his failure to receive support from Labour MPs, reluctance

of NATO countries to support America’s fake global war on terror and double game of striking

the ISIS activists, acceptance of Syrian refuges by the European countries, especially Germany

and the EU rule to boycott goods produced in Israeli settlements on the West Bank prove that

Mossad used ISIS to conduct the November 13 terror-attacks in Paris to revive the global war on

terror, and to obtain the aims of the neo-conservatives, Zionists and Israel, as they needed the

assistance of the whole Europe against the Muslims.

The Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom’s statement, hours after the Paris attacks

caused a stir in Jerusalem, as she said that “to counteract the radicalization, we must go back to

the situation in the Middle East of which not the least the Palestinians see that there is no future:

we must either accept a desperate situation or resort to violence.”

Meanwhile, the mastermind of the Paris attacks was killed by the French forces, including a

woman who blew herself up during a shootout with police.

In the post-November 13 phenomena, Europe has been put on high alert and Paris terror assaults

are being taken as attacks on the whole continent. After arrests and killings of the suspected

persons and masterminds of the Paris catastrophe—having connections with ISIS, western

citizens feel panic, while the Muslims there are facing harassment owing to their persecution.

Manipulating the terrorism-acts in Paris and its aftermath, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and

their media are propagating that same radical Islam which is behind Israel is also behind Paris

attacks. Like the drastic aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy, they want to hold all the Muslims

responsible for the mayhem in order to divert the attention of the west from the real culprits.

Notably, the French authorities said that they have killed the masterminds of the Paris attacks.

But, reports from Tel Aviv say that the real mastermind is in Syria.

It is of particular attention that in 2009, when more than 12 Pakistani students were arrested in

UK in connection with terrorism, the then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had sated that

the most dangerous plot had been foiled by the police. But, afterwards, British authorities

released the students and admitted that they had no link with terrorism. In this context, earlier,

Zionist-controlled media and US-led some European powers were propagating that any

conspiracy to attack the US homeland and Europe with chemical weapons or dirty nuclear bomb

would be prepared in Pakistan’s tribal areas. Now, after the Paris terror attacks, they have

changed the side of their propaganda machinery towards Syria, raising same misconceptions to

Indicating the double game, Hans J. Morgenthau, and Palmer and Perkins opine, “Just as power

became the instrument of ambitious nationalism and state’s leaders, it has now become the tool

of ideologies. The true nature of the policy is concealed by ideological justifications and

rationalization. Therefore, the ideology provides a mask behind which the ulterior motives are

Although, European rulers and leaders, particularly of France know that who are playing double

game, yet they cannot point out owing to diplomatic decorum. Hence, France has decided to join

the Russian coalition to eliminate ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Meanwhile, it is a good sign that other

countries like UK are considering a broader alliance (Including Russia) in this respect. Because

of internal criticism in relation to phony war on terror and on ISIS, even President Obama has

also announced to join such a larger alliance.

Nonetheless, fanatics and extremists are found in every religious community. Therefore, taking

note of the double game which franchised Al-Qaeda and ISIS, moderate and peace-loving

Muslims, Jews, Christians and Hindus must play their positive role in thwarting the conspiracy

of those plotters who intend to take the world to “Clash of Civilizations.” Instead of engaging

themselves in controversial debate on the alternative media (Internet), they must utilize it for the

larger interest of humanity.


Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants,
Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Courtesy Veterans Today

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on Double Game Franchised Al-Qaeda and ISIS?

US SuperGov Shelters ISIS, Feints its Destruction


Image result for ISIS LOGO

Posted by  

Part 1.US SuperGov hides its support for ISIS, risks war

It is commonly thought that ISIS, the Islamic State In Iraq and Syria (also ISIL or Daesh), was born from fall out from wars there.  Some say it is a splinter group from Al-Qaeda.  But the only sure way to understand who ISIS would be to be privy to who finances it. “Follow the money trail and you will find the owner” is a time-tested rule that never fails for long. The endless US SuperGov propaganda effort has been from day one to convince us of the impossible, that ISIS is self financing and that we must not think about or look for its godfather of finance.

US SuperGov has not yet been clearly pinned with directly financing ISIS, but many besides this writer suspect it with good reason.  All signs point to ISIS very existence it to be an instrument of US regime change in the Middle East.  Hidden is the method and the parties through whom the dollars are funneled to ISIS.  We will explore why this view is very logical.

Unfortunately the money-flow monitoring system that is so efficient in tracing every bank transaction that crosses a national border is not going to help us.  After the tragic killings of 120-odd fun seekers in Paris, the news has been about ISIS and little else–how it must be stopped, destroyed, “decapitated”, as President Obama grotesquely quipped.  But not once have I read or heard anyone suggesting ISIS needed to be de-funded, which means cutting off its supply of money.  It seems to be a very suspicious, gentleman’s rule that the sources of money are never to be mentioned in the same breath with ISIS.  We are supposed to believe the nonsense that it is self-supporting.  The first sign of US SuperGov sheltering  ISIS is that the former has done nothing to uncover ISIS’s Godfather (who we suspect is Saudi Arabia) nor to end the flow of dollars to it.

The US SuperGov could strangle ISIS if it really wanted to.  Consider how sanctions have proved capable of financially strangling Iran. and Cuba for 50 years. and how they are now applied to Russia and others.  So why can’t it find and control the flow of money into ISIS, a non-country without even a bank of its own?  Do we really believe that the US SuperGov surveillance machine, which stashes and reads at will our e-mail, is not capable of tracing billions of dollars into some world accounts used to pay for war equipment?  How does ISIS pay Delta for hundreds of air fares back and forth from the Middle East?  ISIS mercenaries drive hundreds, maybe thousands, of brand new Toyota pick-up trucks we see on BBC, but our SuperGov can’t trace and block this flow of cash?  Common sense tells us they could if they wanted to, so why don’t they?  Again, we must resort to common sense and logic.

Once we find out who finances ISIS, we can guess all we need to know about its objectives and who its fighters are.  And don’t be surprised if you ask and do not get a clear answer. Rather we are fed a popular, but preposterous story that ISIS pays for its own war by selling slaves, robbing banks, and running captured oil wells and refineries.

Bizarre as it sounds, recent events have shown that oil revenues may actually have been part of its funding for many months, but only because US SuperGov watched and allowed it to happen.  I once wrote it was no less logical to believe ISIS warriors milk goats and sell cheese to pay for tanks and artillery than that they sell oil!  I never believed the “selling petrol” story and said so, but it seems I was wrong. It is clear and logical the US SupperGov watched let them do it, that is until Russia and France arrived!  According to the prestigious Financial Times of London, November 14, Isis Inc: how oil fuels the jihadi terrorists*, it has been running old fields called al-Omar, and selling oil to truckers, who haul it away to markets. It is also suggested they operated a refinery in central Syria.

Note that the US excuse for bombing raids in Syrian was to protect the world from ISIS, it had no invitation from the Assad government. Bit it seems those hundreds of  US air strikes did not try to stop the crude oil flow, at least not until the Russians joined the war party a few months ago. Immediately after France bombed ISIS’s oil transportation system, responding to the Paris attack US SuperGov developed an excuse why it claimed it could not shut down the oil production. It blaming their lack of action on a decision by President Obama. Yes, the US ignored the ISIS refinery after commencing the bombing of other targets in Syria for many months and hundreds of raids elsewhere, ignored that is until France became angry with ISIS and bombed it.

In less then one week France and Russia have both claimed to have destroyed ISIS’s ability to sell oil from Syria’s northern oil fields by simply destroying its means of transporting crude oil to markets in Iraq.  France says it used intelligence borrowed from the US forces to destroy 116 oil transport trucks parked at the apparently shut down refinery. A few day before  Russia claims it found and destroyed 500 transports on a highway to Iraq. It is not important if this number is accurate or even close, Russia and France have both shown they know how to shut down ISIS’s oil sale without destroying Syria’s valuable oil industry.

An US SuperGov excuse story for not shutting down ISIS’s crude oil sales border on silly It was published in always-willing Bloomberg News.  It tells us that (before the arrival of Russia and France) the US could not inflict sufficient damage on the ISIS refinery to keep it shut down.  Thus the US forces allowed ISIS to raise money selling oil to continue its siege on the Assad government, and some of that money ended in murder in the Paris streets.

Logically, US weapons of mass destruction can shut down any factory (refinery or oil well) that manufactures an explosive product like oil, anytime it has a will to do so.   How come the US could not think of destroying the transports and pipelines two years ago?  And what about the refinery’s pipe line to Turkey, is it also allowed to run?  I do not know, but my guess is this is why Turkey is so cooperative with the US in fighting against Assad.

It appears that US SuperGov has allowed ISIS to pump Syrian oil and flow to Turkey and Iraq, and the money flow back to ISIS…is that possible?  This would explain why Turkey is hostile to Russia, the latter being quite serious about destroying ISIS, who Turkey depends upon.  On November 24, 2015 Turkey shot down a Russian war plane over Syria, a strange thing to do if the two are supposed to be allies against ISIS.  But not so strange if Turkey is an ally of US SuperGov and the two want to keep ISIS going until the Assad regime can be replaced. Regime change, as was done in Iraq Afghanistan, Sudan, Libya, and is aimed at Iran, and perhaps even Russia?

More and more we are led to the logical where news fails us. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the US are sheltering ISIS; against Russian and Syria who want to destroy it and allow Assad to continue.  Is it possible that acts like those of Turkey against Russia could lead to world war? Why not, President Obama has just today stated that Russia is not on board with the US plan, that being to ignore all the factions warring against Assad, except ISIS. Unsaid is that the US SuperGov would mastermind this war in Syria that has already put million of refugees on the road to Europe.  The end result, the Assad family is turned out, maybe murdered, and Syria is divided into hunks rules by regional warlords. Then ISIS can slide forth toward Iran, the next regime change on the list. Does this logic resonate?

Perhaps US SuperGov does not want a world war, but whoever they are, they want ISIS to complete regime change in Syria!  So ISIS’s black-market oil continues to flow because someone higher than President Obama wants to keep on warring.

This  writer doubts that ISIS  depends on the sale of oil for money nor on the sale of slaves or any of the other fanciful stories we are told.  If and when oil sales are cut off, It will be funded as all armies always are: from “back home,” wherever that is.  So who is the  big daddy behind ISIS?  It has wonderful weapons, better than the US-equipped Iraqi army, and far beyond Syria.  Some of ISIS’s weapons are made in the US, said to have been captured from vast US military stockpiles in Iraq.  Some believe the buddy to be Saudi Arabia, America’s supposedly second-best ally in the Middle East.  And  Saudi Arabia has the third biggest war budget in the world, about $80 billion per year, ahead of Russia.  Saudi Arabia is without a doubt the largest buyer of US war equipment, so what if the Saudis loaned some of this war power to ISIS?  Would the USA’s best friend ME, second only to Israel, loan weapons to the US SuperGov enemy?  Yes, if ISIS is destabilizing the Saudi’s competition.

And how about Israel, which has lately been exposed as a secret ally of the Saudis?  These two countries are supposed to be mortal enemies of each other, but they have a mutual defense alliance.  Perpetual war in the Middle East helps to cover up Israel’s brutal occupation of the unarmed and hopeless Philistines.  In the eyes of many Americans, especially Christians Zionists who want to believe it, Philistines are thought of as part of ISIS. So war on ISIS serves as a cover for Israel’s ongoing  genocide in Gaza and West Bank Palestine.  Perhaps Israel gives the Saudis a hand.

Others are also applying logic when the news fails us.  According to a makes-sense publication, Critical Thinking, “There can be little doubt that ISIS is a US/Israel creation, aided, abetted and funded by the UK, NATO, Turkey and the Gulf States.”  Critical Thinking continues, “Now Obama is committing to putting US special forces on the ground in Syria (placed among the moderate opposition to Assad) ostensibly as ‘advisers’ but more accurately as human shields to protect ISIS from Russian bombs – it would be more than embarrassing for Russia to kill US troops; it could easily escalate and broaden the conflict into WWIII. Think about how WWI started – from a localized event which unleashed pent-up geopolitical tensions.”

Critical Thinking‘s logic is consistent with events.  ISIS’s cash may well flow in from Saudi Arabia, an US surrogate, and from the CIA, which funded the Iraqi underground war with plane-loads of US $100 bills printed at the Federal Reserve.  ISIS’s lead warriors are known to be recruited from all over the globe, probably paid more than what an US soldier earns!  It is not cheap to bring fighters from Denver, London, or Paris.  At least three women from Denver are in custody for trying to join ISIS in Turkey!  Mercenaries fight, but they would not be there without cash up front.

There is another reason to suspect Saudi Arabia of being ISIS’s backer:  their common religion.  We are falsely led to believe ISIS is standard, radicalized Islam, but is it?  Only in Saudi Arabia is the Wahhabi fringe of Islam practiced with beheadings and the chopping off of limbs, including those of political prisoners.  The Independent did a count, and found Saudis behead someone on the average of every other day.  According to Wikipedia, 151 beheadings have occurred so far in 2015.  Only Saudi Arabia and ISIS practice punishment by decapitation.  If they act alike, maybe they are “the same!”

Charlie Rose interviewed Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, on PBS and acted stunned over what Assad told him, that ISIS is “the same” as Saudi Arabia.  Host Rose was so surprised he asked President al-Assad to repeat the statement.There is no difference,” said Assad.  Rose did not question it.

Why not an ISIS war, paid for by US SuperGov through proxies, Saudi and others, and fought by mercenaries who think they are fighting against “US imperialism?”  US SuperGov may think they need more wars to keep the economy from stalling and crashing!  The USA and NATO are fanning flames, and Israel and have created countless Arab enemies for us.  Many think they hate us enough to die for one chance to get even, or to kill a Frenchman.

Here is what makes common sense.  ISIS’s military leaders were recruited out of the military leaders of the US-rejected Saddam Hussein’s Socialist Ba’ath party in Iraq.  Its money comes from the New York FED’s printing press, cycled and washed through Saudi Arabia’s enormous, ill-gotten oil wealth.  Hatred feeds ISIS, coming from the millions of homeless and impoverished, the hopeless sons and daughters of those slaughtered in six US SuperGov regime-change wars; volunteers are bitter men who have been victimized and are desperate for a job.  Some are willing to wear suicide vests to have a chance to get even.  They are not motivated by religion, but by the desperate homeless poverty that we see in the immigration march to Europe.  This is not inside information, it is simple logic.

Only an arms-locked movement of the American people, demanding peace and challenging US SuperGov, can stop the serial wars.  That movement must, and this is my opinion, start in our churches, which are responsible for caring for the orphans, widows, and homeless refugees.  These churches need to break their cowardly silence and oppose killing, as Jesus would.

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on US SuperGov Shelters ISIS, Feints its Destruction

Shoah’s pages


November 2015
« Oct   Dec »