West Attempts to Trigger Clash of Civilizations
By
Tony
Cartalucci
20
September, 2012
In
France where people are sent to jail for “Holocaust denial,”
considered by law a religious hate crime, it seems strange then that
well timed, raunchy cartoons designed solely to insult and inflame
hate against and amongst Muslims worldwide would be defended
vigorously by French politicians who claim, according to the
Christian Science Monitor, that “freedom of the press should not be
infringed”.
”With
Neo-Conservative warmongers behind a
recent inflammatory film titled, “The Innocence of Muslims,”
and their counterparts amongst radical sectarian extremists leading
violent protests across the Middle East and North Africa, it would
almost seem as if the publication of insulting cartoons by a French
paper, “Charlie Hebdo,” was part of a grander strategy to create
a manufactured conflict between Islam and the West, setting the stage
for more overt military operations to take over faltering covert
operations in Syria and beyond.
France (and the West) Are Playing Both Sides
It is a fact that France itself has provided state sponsorship of terrorism from Libya to Syria, arming, funding, and politically backing the very groups taking to the streets, burning Western consulates, and killing bystanders, diplomats, and security forces alike. France had armed, trained, funded, and provided air support for the UN-listed terrorist outfit, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) last year in Libya, in their bid to overthrow the government of Muammar Qaddafi.
France (and the West) Are Playing Both Sides
It is a fact that France itself has provided state sponsorship of terrorism from Libya to Syria, arming, funding, and politically backing the very groups taking to the streets, burning Western consulates, and killing bystanders, diplomats, and security forces alike. France had armed, trained, funded, and provided air support for the UN-listed terrorist outfit, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) last year in Libya, in their bid to overthrow the government of Muammar Qaddafi.
Image:
Libyan Mahdi al-Harati of the US
State Department,
United
Nations,
and the UK
Home Office (page 5, .pdf)-listed
terrorist organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG),
addressing fellow terrorists in Syria. Harati is now commanding a
Libyan brigade operating inside of Syria attempting to destroy the
Syrian government and subjugate the Syrian population. Traditionally,
this is known as “foreign invasion.” France is one of a handful
of nations currently leading state-sponsorship of terrorist groups
like LIFG in Syria.
….
LIFG
had merged officially with Al Qaeda, according to a US Army West
Point Combating Terrorism Center report in 2007, long before the
French knowingly aided and abetted these terrorists in their bid to
overthrow and overrun Libya. Currently, the government of France is
funding and arming these very same terrorists, who promptly
transferred weapons, cash, and fighters to
Syria to begin terror operations there.
The
apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to Iraq may be linked the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s (LIFG) increasingly cooperative
relationship with al‐Qa’ida, which culminated in the LIFG
officially joining al‐Qa’ida on November 3, 2007. (page
9, .pdf)
France
had recently announced its intentions to overtly arm these terror
groups operating in Syria, now exposed by Human Rights Watch as
carrying out systematic and widespread atrocities against the Syrian
population.
“Reuters
quoted a “diplomatic source” as saying France had started
supporting parts of Syria that are apparently being controlled by the
armed opposition. More alarmingly, the report pointed out that Paris
was considering supplying heavy artillery to anti-government fighters
— a move that would harden the possibility of a full-blown civil
war in the country.”
Now
France, through its media, and the complicity of its politicians’
tacit support, is providing their new terrorist allies with something
else – a causus belli for confrontation with the West to reinsert
in the public’s mind the adversarial plot device needed to
introduce more direct military intervention where the covert support
of listed-terrorist groups has now seemingly failed.
The
Lie We Are Expected to Believe
What
we are now expected to believe is that France, the US, UK, and other
nations were benevolently, and unwittingly helping these groups into
power, only to be betrayed by extremists.
In
reality, the nature of these militant groups was known years in
advance, these groups specifically chosen to lead the violent
subversion of Western targets across the Arab World – with the
possibility of sectarian genocide and significant blowback
acknowledged as an acceptable risk.
In
2007, an article by Seymour Hersh published in the New Yorker titled,
“The Redirection” admitted that:
“To
undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush
Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities
in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated
with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine
operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite
organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in
clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product
of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups
that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America
and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”
-The
Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)
Hersh’s
report would also include:
“the
Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds
and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir
Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on
the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to
negotiations.”
-The
Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)
Clearly
the West, including the complicit regimes of Nicolas Sarkozy and now
François Hollande, knowingly funded terrorists. Hersh’s report
admits that all parties involved even in 2007 knew full well the
potential dangers involved in funding terrorist groups but believed
these forces could be controlled:
“…[Saudi
Arabia's] Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that
“they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists.
Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can
control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw
bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr,
Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and
Iran.”
-The
Redirection, Seymour Hersh (2007)
For
the West to feign that evidence Al Qaeda is now overrunning the
Middle East is somehow an unintended consequence, when officials in
2007 were on record already implementing such a policy is indeed a
bold lie. To help sell that lie, the West is calling on its
Neo-Conservative factions, and in particular, dusting off their
Islamophobia
brigades
led by the likes of Daniel Pipes, a Project for a New American
Century (PNAC) signatory and a chief proponent for war with Syria and
Iran, as well as lesser demagogues such as Robert Spencer, Pamella
Geller, and David Horowitz.
The
creation of a sectarian extremist front to undermine and destroy the
governments of Syria and Iran began under Bush in 2007 – Syria and
Iran being the specific targets Neo-Cons like Pipes have ceaselessly
advocated war with. That Pipes and his compatriots are
now claiming the rise of this terrorist front
they themselves helped create is somehow the result of a “pro-Islam
Obama” is immense propaganda designed for the most impressionable
minds.
The
Plan: Flip the Script (Again)
In
reality, Obama provided left-cover for a singular corporate-financier
driven agenda, decided
upon decades ago,
and part of the reoccurring patterns and themes
that define all empires past and present.
It
appears that the public is becoming increasingly aware that the US
has just handed the nation of Libya over to sectarian extremists and
is backing brigades of these same terrorists, now operating in Syria.
The operation in Syria seems to have reached a stalemate, with the
further arming and backing of increasingly visible terrorist forces a
politically untenable option.
It
appears that the alternative plan is to flip the script once more,
turning Al Qaeda – who began as celebrated freedom fighters
battling Soviets in the mountains of Afghanistan, to reviled
terrorists waging a decade of war on America in Iraq and Afghanistan,
to freedom fighters seeking to oust Qaddafi and President Bashar
al-Assad, to once again back to reviled, embassy attacking,
ambassador-killing thugs.
Seemingly
fully committed to tipping off a “clash of civilizations,” the
ground is being prepared for false flag attacks and preparing public
opinion for more direct military intervention in places like Syria
and Iran. The failures of the last four years of corporate-financier
driven policy is being compartmentalized around Obama and will be
flushed with his presidency either in 2012, or 2016 with the hopes
that the agenda itself will survive and carry on.
An
Obama win in 2012 would allow the West to continue funding terrorists
more openly worldwide against the governments of Syria, Iran, and
even Russia and China – blaming it all on “Pro-Islam Obama.” A
Romney victory would allow more aggressive, direct military
intervention. Either way, the nations of Syria, Iran, Russia, and
China will continue to find themselves in the firing line of both
covert and overt foreign military aggression.
The
overall agenda is global corporate-financier hegemony, the
destruction of the nation-state, and the primacy of Wall
Street-London dictated “international law” for an “international
order” corporate-financier think-tank policy maker
Robert Kagan concedes
“serves the needs of the United States and its allies, which
constructed it.”
By
recognizing the singular agenda front-men like Bush, Obama, and
Romney cover for, we can expose the corporate-financier
special interests
truly dictating Western policy. By understanding that it is
corporate-financier interests, not politicians, that drive these
nefarious, overarching agendas, we can formulate solutions based upon
undermining and replacing their power and influence,
rather than becoming absorbed in short-sighted political battles that
ultimately change only the front-men, not the agenda itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.