Saturday, November 14, 2015

CrISIS in Paris

ISIS has claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks and promises more of the same.
The style of the attack was in line with the Islamic State’s tactic of indiscriminate killings and goes against Al Qaeda’s guidelines. In a 2013 directive, the leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, stated that Qaeda operatives should avoid attacks that could inadvertently cause the death of Muslim civilians and noncombatant women or children.
Wait. Is my memory failing? Wasn't it just yesterday when David Petraeus and other neocons were saying that the United States should arm Al Qaeda?

My memory is not playing tricks on me. See here: "Petraeus: Use Al Qaeda Fighters to Beat ISIS." And here: "Ex-CIA chief David Petraeus pitches plan to use al Qaeda in battle against ISIS." Of course, when Petraeus talks about using Al Qaeda to fight ISIS, he's really saying that we should use Al Qaeda to unseat Bashar Assad, the elected leader of Syria. Petraeus knows full well that Al Qaeda won't fight ISIS because the two jihadist groups are, in fact, partners (as the NYT just now conceded -- thanks, NYT!).

By the way: The Charlie Hebdo attack was attributed to Al Qaeda. You know what that means? David Petraeus n'est pas Charlie.

Wikileaks. Raw Story published a compendium of ugly, stupid Twitter reactions from leading conservatives. In the interest of a false notion of fairness, RS ended with the following tweet from a non-conservative source:


At least 39 dead in French terror attacks this evening. France has closed borders. US, UK, France fed ISIS. Not so funny now, is it?
6:31 PM - 13 Nov 2015
What, I ask you, is wrong with that statement?

The inevitable false flag theory. By now, we all know how the conspiracy buff mindset works: "Did something happen? FALSE FLAG!" Ah, my little munchkins: I am old and grey, and I can recall a time when even the most desperate fear-junkies felt constrained to come up with a few scattered shards of evidence before making such a claim. Good times, those were. Good times.

Paul Craig Roberts makes the FF case, and some of what he says is worth quoting:
Possibly believable evidence will be presented that the Paris attacks were real terrorist attacks. However, what do refugees have to gain from making themselves unwelcome with acts of violence committed against the host country, and where do refugees in France obtain automatic weapons and bombs? Indeed, where would the French themselves obtain them?

The millions of refugees from Washington’s wars who are overrunning Europe are bringing to the forefront of European politics the anti-EU nationalists parties, such as Pegida in Germany, Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party, and Marine Le Pen’s National Front Party in France. These anti-EU political parties are also anti-immigrant political parties.

The latest French poll shows that, as a result of the refugees from Washington’s wars, Marine Le Pen has come out on top of the candidates for the next French presidential election.
You don't have to agree with the FF theory to admit that Roberts' primary question -- where did the weapons come from? -- is both reasonable and pertinent. However, it is also quite difficult to look for answers. How does a potential terrorist go about the task of acquiring automatic weaponry and grenades in France? My first instinct was to Google the issue. Then the thought occurred to me: Will searching on those terms trigger alarm bells at the NSA?

It's amusing to compare Roberts' question to those ugly conservative tweets compiled by Raw Story. Here's Newt Gingrich:
Imagine a theater with 10 or 15 citizens with concealed carry permits. We live in an age when evil men have to be killed by good people
This has become one of the most popular right-wing talking points: I bet those snooty French now wish that they didn't have such restrictive gun laws. Nope. Right now, many French people are looking for ways to make it harder to get guns. Why? Because many French people are asking the same question that Paul Craig Roberts asked.

I don't think that many French citizens relish the thought of allowing young idiots to pack heat when they attend heavy metal concerts. The French are sensible enough to understand what would happen if a few numbskull metal-heads -- armed with .22s, and buzzed on wine and ecstasy -- started to fire at jihadi maniacs toting machine guns and wearing explosive vests.

By the way: France's only aircraft carrier is on the way to the Middle East. France now has all the excuse it needs to attack Russian and Syrian forces under the pretext of attack ISIS. If that happens, the false flaggers will have a vastly improved argument.
The French are sensible enough to understand what would happen if a few numbskull metal-heads -- armed with .22s, and buzzed on wine and ecstasy -- started to fire at jihadi maniacs toting machine guns and wearing explosive vests.

I fail to see how the ultimate outcome in this case would have been worse than what actually happened. I do however think it's reprehensible for anyone to be exploiting this atrocity to further a domestic political agenda.

More of the same on why and who? False flag event for sure.
the band's name is ironic, it does pop rock. that's what i read anyway.
The neocon attacks against Islam have started already. This from The Spectator:

"Will politicians finally admit that the Paris attacks had something to do with Islam ... The West’s movement towards the truth is remarkably slow. We drag ourselves towards it painfully, inch by inch, after each bloody Islamist assault."

The writer, Douglas Murray, was the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion from 2007 until 2011, a UK group whose principal idea was that Islamism (as they saw it) was a threat to Western society. In 2011 it merged with the Henry Jackson Society and Douglas Murray is its current director. He is also the author of "Neoconservatism: Why We Need It (2005)".

The Principles of the HJS are neocon and the initial signatories include patrons Richard Perle, William Kristol and James Woolsey.

I have an extended post on these issue here.
James Carden has written an incredible article entitled "Neo-McCarthyism and the US Media -The crusade to ban Russia policy critics".

"...a special report published last fall by the online magazine the Interpreter would have us believe that Russian “disinformation” ranks among the gravest threats to the West. The report, titled "The Menace of Unreality: How the Kremlin Weaponizes Information, Culture and Money," is a joint project of the Interpreter and the Institute for Modern Russia (IMR), a Manhattan-based think tank funded by the exiled Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Cowritten by the journalists Michael Weiss and Peter Pomerantsev, this highly polemical manifesto makes the case for why the United States, and the West generally, must combat what the authors allege to be the Kremlin’s extravagantly designed propaganda campaign. "

and... "According to Weiss and Pomerantsev, the most severe threat is the one posed by RT, a network to which they impute vast powers. They are hardly alone. In January, Andrew Lack, then chief executive of the Broadcasting Board of Governors—the federal agency that oversees the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and other US-funded media outlets—likened RT’s threat to those posed by “the Islamic State in the Middle East and groups like Boko Haram.” (Lack was recently named chairman of NBC News.) "

There's a lot, LOT more, all of it outstanding, including ties to the Legatum Institute and the Henry Jackson Society.
Here's a clue:

"...This is all a very big game. And captagon is not just some recreational drug, intended for underground nightclubs in the Gulf, and for notorious private orgies in Saudi Arabia. It is, as I was told by local experts, a “drug that makes one extremely brutal; a drug, which destroys all fear”. It is a “combat narcotic”, which has been given mainly to the ISIS fighters."

from: The Saudi Prince and Two Tons of Narcotics by Andre Vltche
Raw Story too often seems like one of the fake progressive web sites. Who runs it?

Petraeus and McCain pushed this past summer for a new AUMF to replace the one from 2002. The 2002 one - which remains the sole legal basis for the War On Terror - defined the military target as "al Qaeda and associated forces". Both Petraeus and McCain have, in the past few years, openly associated themselves with elements of al-Qaeda, and therefore should or could be targeted for drone assassination. That's part of the reason why they pushed for a new definition of the WOT and a new AUMF. In a historical comparative sense, both men are the equivalents of the Americans who sheltered and resettled Nazis after WWII.
If the U.S. gives guns to Al Queda, and they were to actually use them to fight ISIS, isn't that the ideal scenario, two terrorist groups attacking each other?
Went to a Middle Eastern bakery in Richardson, Tx yesterday as recommended to me by a friend from Iraq. The people there were super, super nice and the food was just astounding. We have got to stop all of this insanity that is going on in the world now. People are people no matter what their color or religion. They have the exact same thoughts we have. They have the same emotions. They have the same wants and desires. There just is no biological differences. Killing them is the same as killing ourselves because we are one species. It is past time to for us to figure out some real solutions to our problems. We can't go on like this anymore. We can start by actively ferreting out and removing the arms from these "contested" areas and move to STOP all import of arms into these countries. No arms from USA. None from China, North Korea or the USA. Without weapons the efficacy of the ISIS movement will come to an end. It all starts with arms and only INSANE people like John McCain wants to keep throwing gasoline on the fire instead of coming up with real solutions that will work. We have to beat this cycle of violence somehow someway.
Let this sink in...sold on 9-11
Some are complaining on Twitter that the Kenya student attacks got nowhere the coverage of the Paris attacks because of racism.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?