Pre-Text in Middle East: Journalists Beheading as Nano 9/11

WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes. In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows. How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out?
These are not the words of some armchair pacifist or a gutless dove, but were pronounced by the most decorated US Marine in that country’s history ever. The man who said these memorable words, in a throwback to the sordid profiteering described in the novel “Catch-22” by Joseph Heller, was Major General Smedley Darlington Butler. Now, consider the people assembled in the photograph below to open yet another chapter in the never ending “war by terror”. Can one imagine their real motives? Not really difficult to fathom, if one sees what they said when, and how their glib words changed.
17 September 2014: In a vote that eschewed traditional Washington divisions in favor of novel ones, the House approved a bill that authorized the training and arming of Syrian rebels in their fight against the so-called Islamic State.  The final tally was 273 to 156. But many members of both parties broke ranks with their leaders — Reps. John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi — who strongly backed the measure.  According to a count by NBC News’ Frank Thorp, 114 Democrats voted in favor of the measure; 85 voted no. Republicans broke down similarly, voting 159 to 71… ” ‘Obama is our commander in chief,’ said Representative C. A. (Dutch) Ruppersberger of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. ‘You don’t weaken the commander in chief when we’re in a serious crisis.‘ “.
War, undoubtedly, creates rare “unity” of purpose. While the house was voting on the measure, the supreme commander and President, Barak Obama, “pledged” to troops at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida, “The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission. I will not commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq”. But, only a day earlier, top US General and chief of joint staff Martin Dempsey had crafted a nice testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee alongside defence secretary Chuck Hagel to afford an honourable escape route for his boss out of the pledge he was to make to the troops the next day.
16 September 2014: he believed that an international coalition against IS was currently the “appropriate way forward”. if that fails to be true, and there are threats to the United States, then I of course would go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of US military ground forces.“To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific Isil [Islamic State] targets, I will recommend that to the president,”. Hagel added, “We are at war with Isil, as we are with al-Qaeda… This plan includes targeted actions against Isil safe havens in Syria, including its command and control, logistics capabilities, and infrastructure”.   
The president asked and was authorised to “train and arm the moderate Syrian opposition”. Who is or are the “Moderate Syrian Opposition? Doesn’t is sound uncannily like the “good” Taliban and the “bad” Taliban hair-splitting in Afghanistan? Is Jabhat Al Nusra, the official Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, that is “violently at odds” with its splinter group –split only in June 2014, which calls itself Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham [Syria] [ISIS] and declared a Caliphate in the area they control, moderate? Until March this year, Obama was “sternly” opposed to arming rebels with more advanced weaponry, including anti-aircraft missiles, or MANPADs.
The Saudis have long pressed Western powers to arm rebel factions fighting to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad with sophisticated weapons, hoping it would turn the tide in the opposition’s favor in the three-year, brutal conflict. To bolster its argument that it is taking “concrete steps to limit the actions of jihadist groups fighting in Syria”, Saudi Arabia passed unprecedented anti-terror lawsthat specifically targeted Saudi nationals fighting abroad, as well as listing Jabhat al-Nusra, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) and the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations….
US officials continue to remain skeptical that such trustworthy, “moderate” rebels exist, or that arms provided to vetted, moderate rebels would not end up in the hands of the extremists. The distinction between “moderate” and “extremist” rebels in Syria has been presented in word only, without any substance to corroborate such a distinction… A number of key Salafist and extremist factions operate beyond the three listed groups, and are wrongly touted as “moderate.”
The Islamic Front, for instance, is a nationwide coalition bringing together a number of Salafist groups that equally hold extremist ideologies. Ahrar al-Sham is one of the founding members of the Islamic Front, and is mainly active in Aleppo and the north. Jaish al-Islam, another key member of the coalition, largely operates in the Damascus countryside and is headed by Zahran Alloush. According to Syria expert Joshua Landis, the “difference between his ideology and that of al-Qaeda groups is not profound.”
Each and every ally of the USA in the region –Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey [NATO member], Egypt, U.A.E., have their “favourite Islamist groups” in Syria and Iraq. Former head of MI6, the British secret intelligence service, Sir Richard Dearlove, squarely nailed the Saudi secret funding to ISIS during a talk at Royal United Services Institute, in Julythis year: “Such things simply do not happen spontaneously…since the tribal and communal leadership in Sunni majority provinces [in Iraq] is much beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and would be unlikely to cooperate with Isis without their consent.” The Saudis were doing this despite passing “tough anti-terror laws” just months earlier to “pursue” Obama to provide sophisticated weapons to “moderate opposition”. Is it plausible to believe that National Security Agency [NSA] of US, which listens to telecom and internet traffic throughout the world, even German chancellor Markel was not spared, did not know what was and is going on? Obama had “full” knowledge then, and has full knowledge now of all the overt and covert actions of regimes in Middle-East, friends and foes alike. What has then prompted this palpable about turn in just under 6 months?
 One has to only follow the wise words of, to know the answers, Major General Butler and to seize on a “revelation” made by Sir Dearlove.  Butler’s words, “War is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many”, contain the sage advice; follow the money to understand the motive of the crime. To break Russia and Putin, Ukraine crisis was brokered, and economic sanctions against Russia were either forced by Obama on Europe or Europe stupidly followed USA into a trap. Europe, notably Germany, depends on Russian gas to meet over 30% of its needs. Economies in Europe are floundering since last 6 years. Were Russia pushed to a point where its gas stops flowing to Europe, then not only Russia will be royally screwed but Europe too; but won’t hurt USA at all [History shows that the United States has benefited politically and economically from wars in Europe]. But, to avoid such fate, Europe has to be assured the carrot of alternate reliable supply. Though USA made “tall noises” about exporting its “fracked gas” to Europe, the infrastructure needed to do so would take decades to build. Moreover, its passage would involve expensive transport in cryogenic vessels or of building prohibitive trans-Atlantic under water pipe line.  Where else is cheap gas available that can be brought by inexpensive land-pipe route? Qatar!But Qatari gas would have to pass through Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. Iraq was neutered in 2003 but Syria’s Assad has held on despite over 3 years of intense efforts through supply of arms and funds to “opposition” to dislodge him. So, Syria needs to be “conquered” and Iraq “stabilised” before such a venture can take off. Of course, the lucrative contracts for building such transport infrastructure and for operating and controlling it would be the privilege of US corporations with some spoils shared with UK, French, German entities too. Before that, the destruction of “regimes” in Syria and if possible also Iran, would feed the coffers of weapons systems and armaments manufacturers, from where else but USA; and later another set of corporations would feed off the needed “reconstruction”. This establishes the war-profiteering or the economic rationale of the war on terror.
For understanding the geo-political dynamics and the motives of individual players, one has to now turn to Dearlove’s “helpful” and “timely” revelations. Iran has been a strong and stable country in the region for long and a festering thorn in the US-flesh that seeks absolute control in the region since 1978 when US stooge Shah was overthrown. Persian Iran has been also supportive of Palestinians, who are Arabs, unlike the empty pretensions of all other Arab states. Israel too is overtly hostile to Iran. Israel’s hostility is shared by Saudis, who see Shia Iran a threat to its own domination of other states in the region. Saudis were not too happy about majority Shia government’s ascension in Iraq post Saddam Hussein and were afraid it would take it closer to Iran due to its shared Shia identity despite latter’s non-Arab ethnicity. Dearlove spoke of a comment made 13 years ago –before 9/11- by Saudi Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, until a few months back head of Saudi intelligence and a former ambassador to USA with close ties to Bush family, “The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally ‘God help the Shia’. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them”. Was Bandar aware of “9/11 plot”? George W Bush had suppressed a section of the Congressional Commission’s report on 9/11 hearings before it was published citing “national security”. That section reportedly contained what an intelligence official had testified on oath about the prior knowledge of a “foreign government” of the 9/11 plot. Bandar [called Bandar Bush in Wikipedia biography] enjoyed a very close relationship with Bush [see his photograph with Bush at latter’s ranch in Texas]. Why did a Saudi family very close to house of Saud that stayed in Florida flee USA in haste just weeks prior to 9/11? It was not any family, but the one which was frequently visited by many individuals, who were accused of commandeering US commercial jets into towers at WTC. Was that “foreign government”, Saudi Arabia?  Yes, would be the only answer based on the foregoing. Did Bush too know about it? Jared Israel, who did a commendable forensic analysis of available evidence in public domain immediately after 9/11, proves so. Keeping this critical information in mind would help better decipher the events of recent months.
Since the onset of undeclared but sponsored war in Syria in March 2011, the Islamists groups that were sponsored, funded and armed by Saudis, Qatar, Turkey have been indulging in large scale atrocities on Syrian civilians and government soldiers. The “pro-democracy freedom fighters” routinely beheaded or disembowelled prisoners and even ate their organs. Such gruesome acts were helpfully video-graphed for “information dissemination”. Since victims were Syrian Muslims, Christians or Kurds, there was not a whimper from any western leaders; unlike the present outrage over the beheadings of 3 white Caucasians, two of them journalists. Turkish government was happy that Kurds were at the receiving end, then and even now [Recep Tayyip Erdogan“refused” John Kerry to join current US-French offensive in ISIS]. When ISIS “took birth” its “given” target was Shia majority Nur Al Maliki government in Iraq. It made rapid advances in the Sunni dominated areas of North Western Iraq with the help of seething discontent of the locals against parochial Baghdad government and of local tribal leaders suitably tutored by Saudi money. Its rose spectacularly in just months, to “hold territory” larger than U.K. or France, and made the fall of Baghdad imminent. Ferocious brutality of ISIS against captured Iraqi soldiers and civilians did not “move” the hearts in the west just as it was the case in Syria. Obama was unmoved. He was unmoved because his strategy expected Iran to come to help of Iraq out of its self-interest to stop the ISIS juggernaut far away from Iranian border. There was even a “suggestion” by secretary of state John Kerry that military collaboration was a possibility. Imagine that, US to “cooperate” with an “evil regime” of Ayatollahs in Iran. It was a bait to draw Iran into a war with ISIS, who would then have received full backing of US, NATO, Saudis, Qatar and Israel. It was a “cute” ploy to fulfil the “ominous prophesy” of Bandar Bush. Iranians proved smarter, saw the game, and refused to swallow the bait. Meanwhile, Kurds, ethnically non – Arabs and oppressed minority in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, caught fancy of ISIS leaders. Among Kurds, there is a Yazidi minority, who follow syncretic ancient religion –Yazidism. This community became a horrible victim of ISIS bloodlust. But this was not the script Obama had prepared. The plan of taking down Iran was going horribly wrong. That is when the “reluctant” president was moved to order widespread airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq rather than just providing “military advisers”, though Maliki had been on his knees for weeks earlier begging Obama to bomb ISIS. Naturally, this surfeit of “humanitarian strikes” –176 till 18th September – ordered solely out of “bleeding hearts” for Yazidis and to “save” Iraq, had its effect and drove ISIS back into Syria from where it had re-emerged. Just as ISIS did a U-turn, Obama’s middle-east strategy too has done a U-turn from “take down Iran” to “take down Assad” once again. Obama has ominously declared his right to order unilateral airstrikes against ISIS in Syria too. Obama has been itching to strike inside Syria for years now. Last year he was to do so for alleged use of chemical weapons by Syrian regime but ostensibly only to destroy its stockpile of such chemical weapons and degrade Assad’s capacity to fight the “freedom fighters”.  Return of ISIS to Syria has now given him a “humanitarian mandate” to strike inside Syria at will whether government of Syria agrees or not.
But who is he interested in taking down in Syria, ISIS or Assad? Clue lies in his carefully worded statement aimed at dissimulation: “Obama announced that his strategy would “degrade and ultimately destroy” the enemy”. Earlier, it was to “degrade” Assad. Now it is to “degrade” ISIS. But, the real ominous words are “ultimately”. How long will that “ultimate” be? Kerry provided the useful answer, 3 years. That means ISIS is not going anywhere until Assad is taken down. That is either ISIS does its mandated job or else Obama would do it himself. Once the world is prepared to sit back and observe passively or support enthusiastically the US “humanitarian airstrikes” inside Syria as it does in Iraq, who is to tell where US precision weapons are striking? Degrade yes, but ISIS or Assad?
Grisly beheading of journalists has provided the pretext to prepare US citizens for yet another war by their government just as 9/11 helped Bush to unleash the war on terror to further the goals of the project of New American Century. Why else would ISIS prepare suicidal videos of the beheading and put them on the internet? Would it not know what the inevitable consequences of such action be? The only reasonable conclusion is that it did so at the behest of its Saudi paymasters.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P.S.: Unlike suffering Christians in Syria at the hands of “pro-democracy” Saudi and Qatar sponsored terrorists, the Christians in Lebanon feel safe with Hezbollah supported by Iran: “Our necks and Hezbollah’s neck are intertwined. If Hezbollah wins, we win, and if it is slaughtered we will be slaughtered with it“.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: