Tag: Al-Qaeda

NEW SURGE IN IRAQ

The neo-con numbskulls never give up. They have murdered thousands of American boys in their un-Constitutional invasions in the Middle East and efforts to rule the world. We’ve pissed away over $1.3 trillion on these worthless wars of choice in the last ten years. The true terrorists (Cheney, Wolfowitz, McCain, Bush, Rumsfeld, and now the drone murdering thug – Obama) failed in their Israel/Saudi Arabia propaganda effort to invade Syria. Israel and their captured politician hacks in Washington DC continue to push war with Iran.

You always hear about what a threat these countries are to us. What a fucking joke. Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran are absolutely no threat to the United States. They do not have the capability or interest in attacking America. On the other hand, 15 of the 19 men who attacked us on 9/11 were Saudi Arabians. Who is the real threat?

Everyone remembers moron Bush landing on the aircraft carrier and declaring Mission Accomplished. How’s that working out now. Prior to 2003 oil was $25 per barrel. Al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq. Hussein, our ally against Iran from 1979 until 1990, hated bin Laden and all of the religious Muslim zealots. Now Al Qaeda has taken over Fallujah and is gaining strength in Iraq. What a neo-con success story.

There was no terrorism or bombings in Iraq prior to 2003. Almost 9,000 Iraqis died in 2013 in bombings. The cowardly American public freaked out and cowered in their basements when a couple idiots used some cookware to kill three people in Boston. These same American idiots barely look up from their iGadgets when told that 9,000 Iraqis have been blown up for no good reason. Are their lives worth less than the 3 people killed in Boston? Maybe Neil Diamond can sing a song in Baghdad to sooth the pain of Iraqis.

I’m sure idiots like McCain and Cheney think we should go back into Iraq and fix it again. Neo-cons are the dumbest, most dangerous creatures on earth. Ron Paul was right in 2003 and he is right today.

Submitted by Ron Paul
Remember Fallujah? Shortly after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the US military fired on unarmed protestors, killing as many as 20 and wounding dozens. In retaliation, local Iraqis attacked a convoy of US military contractors, killing four. The US then launched a full attack on Fallujah to regain control, which left perhaps 700 Iraqis dead and the city virtually destroyed.According to press reports last weekend, Fallujah is now under the control of al-Qaeda affiliates. The Anbar province, where Fallujah is located, is under siege by al-Qaeda. During the 2007 “surge,” more than 1,000 US troops were killed “pacifying” the Anbar province.  Although al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before the US invasion, it is now conducting its own surge in Anbar.For Iraq, the US “liberation” is proving far worse than the authoritarianism of Saddam Hussein, and it keeps getting worse. Last year was Iraq’s deadliest in five years. In 2013, fighting and bomb blasts claimed the lives of 7,818 civilians and 1,050 members of the security forces. In December alone nearly a thousand people were killed.I remember sitting through many hearings in the House International Relations Committee praising the “surge,” which we were told secured a US victory in Iraq. They also praised the so-called “Awakening,” which was really an agreement by insurgents to stop fighting in exchange for US dollars. I always wondered what would happen when those dollars stopped coming.Where are the surge and awakening cheerleaders now?

One of them, Richard Perle, was interviewed last year on NPR and asked whether the Iraq invasion that he pushed was worth it. He replied:

I’ve got to say I think that is not a reasonable question. What we did at the time was done in the belief that it was necessary to protect this nation. You can’t a decade later go back and say, well, we shouldn’t have done that.

Many of us were saying all along that we shouldn’t have done that – before we did it. Unfortunately the Bush Administration took the advice of the neocons pushing for war and promising it would be a “cakewalk.” We continue to see the results of that terrible mistake, and it is only getting worse.

Last month the US shipped nearly a hundred air-to-ground missiles to the Iraqi air force to help combat the surging al-Qaeda. Ironically, the same al-Qaeda groups the US is helping the Iraqis combat are benefiting from the US covert and overt war to overthrow Assad next door in Syria. Why can’t the US government learn from its mistakes?

The neocons may be on the run from their earlier positions on Iraq, but that does not mean they have given up. They were the ones pushing for an attack on Syria this summer. Thankfully they were not successful. They are now making every effort to derail President Obama’s efforts to negotiate with the Iranians. Just last week William Kristol urged Israel to attack Iran with the hope we would then get involved. Neoconservative Senators from both parties recently introduced the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013, which would also bring us back on war-footing with Iran.

Next time the neocons tell us we must attack, just think “Iraq.”

WHY ARE WE SUPPORTING AL QAEDA (EASTASIA)?

There were no Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq before we invaded. Now it’s swarming with Al Qaeda fighters. Libyan dictator Ghaddafi was fighting Al Qaeda. We killed him. Mubarek kept the radical Islamists under control. We deposed him. Assad is fighting Al Qaeda terrorists. We are about to kill him. When will the American people use their fucking brains and see what is going on.

Do you see any resemblance to Orwell’s description of war in his training manual for American democracy?

 “In 1984, there is a perpetual war between Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia, the super-states which emerged from the atomic global war. “The book”, The Theory and Practice of Oligarchic Collectivism by Emmanuel Goldstein, explains that each state is so strong it cannot be defeated, even with the combined forces of two super-states—despite changing alliances. To hide such contradictions, history is re-written to explain that the (new) alliance always was so; the populaces accustomed to doublethink accept it. The war is not fought in Oceanian, Eurasian or Eastasian territory but in a disputed zone comprising the sea and land from Tangiers (northern Africa) to Darwin (Australia) to the Arctic. At the start, Oceania and Eastasia are allies combatting Eurasia in northern Africa.

That alliance ends and Oceania allied with Eurasia fights Eastasia, a change which occurred during the Hate Week dedicated to creating patriotic fervour for the Party’s perpetual war. The public are blind to the change; in mid-sentence an orator changes the name of the enemy from “Eurasia” to “Eastasia” without pause. When the public are enraged at noticing that the wrong flags and posters are displayed they tear them down—thus the origin of the idiom “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia”; later the Party claims to have captured Africa.

“The book” explains that the purpose of the unwinnable, perpetual war is to consume human labour and commodities, hence the economy of a super-state cannot support economic equality (a high standard of life) for every citizen. Goldstein also details an Oceanian strategy of attacking enemy cities with atomic rockets before invasion, yet dismisses it as unfeasible and contrary to the war’s purpose; despite the atomic bombing of cities in the 1950s the super-states stopped such warfare lest it imbalance the powers. The military technology in 1984 differs little from that of the Second World War, yet strategic bomber aeroplanes were replaced with Rocket Bombs, Helicopters were heavily used as weapons of war (while they didn’t figure in WW2 in any form but prototypes) and surface combat units have been all but replaced by immense and unsinkable Floating Fortresses, island-like contraptions concentrating the firepower of a whole naval task force in a single, semi-mobile platform (in the novel one is said to have been anchored between Iceland and the Faroe Islands, suggesting a preference for sea lane interdiction and denial).”

http://georgeorwellnovels.com/books/about-nineteen-eighty-four/#The_War

 

Experts: U.S. Case that Syrian Government Responsible for Chemical Weapons Is Weak

George Washington's picture
Submitted by George Washington on 08/30/2013 15:33 -0400

Bonus:

The civil war in Syria started in March 2011. And see this. However, the U.S. has been funding the Syrian opposition since 2006 … and arming the opposition since 2007.

So the American government’s argument that “we must stop Assad because he’s brutally crushing a spontaneous popular uprising” is false.  The U.S. started supporting the rebels 5 years before the protests started.

Moreover, reports from mainstream media sources such as the New York Times, (and here), Wall Street Journal, USA Today, CNN, McClatchy (and here), AP, Time, BBC, the Independent, the Telegraph, Agence France-Presse, Asia Times, and the Star (and here) – confirm that supporting the rebels means supporting Al Qaeda and two other terrorist groups. Indeed, the the New York Times has reported that virtually all of the rebel fighters are Al Qaeda terrorists.

By supporting the rebels, we’re supporting our sworn terrorist enemies.

A War 20 Years In the Making

If there is any doubt about this timeline, please keep in mind that the U.S. and Britain considered attacking Syrians and then blaming it on the Syrian government as an excuse for regime change … 50 years ago (the U.S. just admitted that they did this to Iran) And the U.S. has been planning regime change in Syria for 20 years straight.

The Last “Humanitarian War”

Libya’s Gaddafi claimed that the rebels in that country were actually Al Qaeda.

That claim – believe it or not – has been confirmed.

According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi:

The Hindustan Times reported:

“There is no question that al Qaeda’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition,” Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer and a leading expert on terrorism, told Hindustan Times.   It has always been Qaddafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi.

(Incidentally, Gaddafi was on the verge of invading Benghazi in 2011, 4 years after the West Point report cited Benghazi as a hotbed of Al Qaeda terrorists. Gaddafi claimed – rightly it turns out – that Benghazi was an Al Qaeda stronghold and a main source of the Libyan rebellion.  But NATO planes stopped him, and protected Benghazi.) Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya.  Indeed, Al Qaeda flags were flown over the Benghazi courthouse once Gaddafi was toppled. There is a direct connection to Syria.  Specifically, CNN, the Telegraph,  the Washington Times, and many other mainstream sources confirm that Al Qaeda terrorists from Libya have since flooded into Syria to fight the Assad regime.  And the post-Gaddafi Libyan government is also itself a top funder and arms supplier of the Syrian opposition.

The Bottom Line

The bottom line is that there are no few good guys involved in the Syrian war. The solution is not to bomb the country … or to send more arms to the rebels. The solution is to make sure that less weapons – chemical and conventional – get into that tinder box of a country. And to stay the h@!! out of a conflict which has no bearing on our national security.